Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL

CHARTERHOUSE JAPHET BILL

As amended, considered;

To be read the Third Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress is being made with the reconstruction of the British Steel Corporation and its involvement with the private sector of the steel industry.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I welcome the recent announcement by the British Steel Corporation and Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds of an agreement in principle to form a new joint company, Allied Steel and Wire Limited. I hope to receive further agreed proposals for other public sector—private sector joint companies in the other Steel-making sectors where there is overlap.

Mr. Hooley: Is it not outrageous that the trade unions concerned were given one hour's notice of the so-called Phoenix I reshuffle? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that there will be widespread consultations with the engineering, steel, electrical and all the other unions involved before we get mixed up in this ideological Phoenix II reshuffle?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, I am afraid that I cannot. Delicate commercial negotiations between the nationalised steel industry and private companies were involved. I fear that the jobs of many people might be jeopardised if there were widespread consultation.

Mr. Emery: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any further information about the negotiations with regard to Phoenix II? Secondly, what consideration are the Government giving to providing funds for the private sector in order to keep jobs and businesses in operation, bearing in mind the immense amount of money being given to the public sector?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is asking questions that are on the Order Paper and will arise later. I am assured, however, that the preliminaries for negotiations with regard to Phoenix II will be set in hand very soon.

Mr. Orme: In supporting the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) with regard to consultation, may I ask the Secretary of State what other action he will take to support the private sector? I visited Firth Brown in Sheffield on Friday. That company is in a desperate situation with regard to financing. It is also a large provider of steel to the British Steel Corporation. Can the Secretary of State give some firm assurance of help to the private steel sector at the present time?

Sir Keith Joseph: My understanding is that 80 per cent. of the private steel sector is not in competition with the British Steel Corporation and is therefore being affected very harshly by the precipitate fall in steel prices in the whole of Western Europe. To the extent that there is overlap, the Phoenix concept, while preserving fierce competition from overseas, is intended to optimise the survival of jobs in steel.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards those nationalised industries for which his Department is responsible.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): My aim is to introduce competition where it is lacking, promote joint ventures, invite private sector capital participation wherever appropriate and restore loss-makers to enduring profitability as soon as practicable or reduce the scale of their losses so as to relieve the taxpayer.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the reported discussions taking place between BL and Honda for some form of capital participation, which a Honda spokesman described as comprehensive capital participation in BL? Can my hon. Friend tell us whether that is true, and if so whether he would welcome it? If he has not done so, will he give every encouragement to that development, particularly in the light of the success of the British Aerospace venture, which has succeeded despite opposition from both the official Opposition and the unions?

Mr. Tebbit: Both I and my right hon. Friend have made it plain that we welcome participation in British Leyland by other companies and other investors, possibly from overseas. That remains our policy, and Sir Michael Edwardes and his board are working towards that end.

Dr. McDonald: Is it still the Government's policy to make State industries self-financing by 1982? If so, how much more will the public have to bear in terms of price increases to ensure that aim?

Mr. Tebbit: There is every reason to ensure that the public pay the price of a nationalised industry product at the time they buy it and not to ask other taxpayers to pay it for them.

Mr. Neubert: Approximately how much in total will support for the nationalised industries cost my hon. Friend's Department this year, and how does that compare with the known investment intentions of private industry?

Mr. Tebbit: That is an extremely wide question. I have the figures with me, but they have not been added up. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a separate question. It is a staggeringly large sum.

Mr. James Lamond: If that is the Government's policy towards the nationalised industries, is the Minister satisfied with the progress that has been made with that policy over the last two years?

Mr. Tebbit: One would always want progress to be more rapid. I remind the hon. Gentleman that over 50 per cent. of British Aerospace share capital has been sold. The prospects of British Leyland are improving rapidly, and other proposals for further privatisation are in the course of preparation.

Industrial Production

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the latest figures of changes in industrial production since May 1979; and what steps he is taking to increase industrial production.

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): In the fourth quarter of 1980 the index of industrial production was 12½ per cent. below its value in the second quarter of 1979. Industrial production can best be increased through greater competitiveness based on realistic working practices, sensible wage settlements and improved productivity.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that the fall in industrial production in Britain is much greater than that in most other Western European countries and is a reflection not only of the general recession but of Government policies? Does the hon. Gentleman agree also that unless there is a rapid and prolonged U-turn his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will preside over the decline and collapse of British industry?

Mr. Baker: Industrial decline varies from country to country. The real reason why there was such a sharp decline in industrial production last year was that there was quite massive destocking, on a scale that has been unknown in our recent economic history. There has been a quite exceptional fall in stocks.

Mr. Roberts: Why?

Mr. Baker: I shall explain why. British industry was caught between two pressures on competitiveness—the pressures on the pound due to rising exchange rates and the pressure due to a rapid increase in wage demands.

Mr. Dorrell: Has my hon. Friend studied the assistance that is available to French industry from the French Government in the form of public purchasing policy and in the form of market and product development support? Does he agree that it is unlikely that British industry can compete with French industry in an open market when the French are receiving support on that scale?

Mr. Baker: Of course I am aware of the various support measures that are available, not only in France, but in other countries. A little later I shall be answering a question on public purchasing, which I think will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend's anxiety on this score. With regard to support for research and development, I re-emphasise that there are several

schemes in the Department—for example, the product process development scheme and two microelectronic schemes—where grant money is available for projects and products that are brought forward by British industry.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Minister agree that production has been affected by the Government's policy of high interest rates, high energy costs and the high value of the pound? Has not the closure of thousands of companies during the last two years been a direct consequence of the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Baker: No. The problem is more sophisticated than that. The equation is not simple, but quadratic. Many factors affect the decline in industrial activity that I have indicated. Some of the ones that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are correct, but he should not overlook the unrealistic level of wage settlements for the most part of last year.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Although output has declined as a result of the recession, does my hon. Friend agree that many firms have used this difficult time to improve their working methods and efficiency, which gives hope for greatly increased output, sales and productivity once the recession is over?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us all that there is some advantage in this, in that in many cases companies have become more efficient and slimmed down and will be able to take advantage of the world recession when it comes to an end.

"Buy British"

Mr. Peter Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action the Government are taking to encourage both the public and the private sectors of industry to buy British.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Both sectors can do much to stimulate the competitiveness of their suppliers so that British goods are well designed, competitively priced and reliable. The Government have taken an initiative, which my Department is responsible for co-ordinating, to encourage public sector purchasers to discuss in advance their requirements with suppliers, most of whom are in the private sector.

Mr. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of a"Buy British" campaign must not just be to provide a home market, but to underpin our export effort? Surely it would be desirable if major purchasers, both in the public and private sectors, so set their specifications that British goods would be not only competitive in the world market but extremely marketable?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Too often in the past, public purchasing—not just by the Government but by public agencies as well—has been too concerned with producing a specific and particular product that is available for a specific purpose. In fact, there has been too much emphasis on the tailor-made when there should have been rather more emphasis on buying something ready to wear. Part of the effort of my Department is concerned with that.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister concede that part of the question refers to the private sector? Will he look at situations—for example, home orders credit for


ships—where the Government allow 80 per cent. and where the additional 20 per cent. may be purchased abroad? Will he find ways of persuading organisations which seek to buy the 20 per cent. elsewhere to devote themselves to buying in the United Kingdom because they are getting extensive credit from the Government?

Mr. Baker: That is a rather wider question which deals with a specific industry. I shall certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend explain how this important initiative is compatible with the Government's desire, first, to maintain competitive forces within our home economy and, secondly, to bring down the sterling exchange rate?

Mr. Baker: We are proposing action in many areas which is not much different from that of our international competitors. With regard to competitiveness and value for money, I emphasise that in the public sector we are trying to establish the sort of relationship that exists in the private sector, where a customer and supplier are close together, work on a particular project and as a result design something that can be sold generally. That is the normal way of doing things in the private sector. That is how the private sector gets value for money. For example, let us consider the purchasing policy of Marks and Spencer. There is a close relationship between the supplier and the customer, and no one can say that Marks and Spencer does not get value for money from its suppliers.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that there could hardly be a more important sector of industry than the production of data processing equipment? Will he undertake to place the development contracts with ICL for sophisticated, advanced data processing equipment—for which ICL has asked—before that industry, like so many others, is decimated by competition from Japan and the United States?

Mr. Baker: That is a broader subject than development contracts for ICL. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. This is an area where Government purchasing can be extremely effective. I take on board the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

West Yorkshire

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to promote industrial activity in West Yorkshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. MacGregor): I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 February.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the doubling of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside between May 1979 and January 1981, and the fact that in Bradford alone an average of over 100 jobs weekly were lost in 1980, will the Minister again consider the problem of investment incentives for Yorkshire and, indeed, for Britain generally, so that we can create more employment? Is not the present situation tragic, and deteriorating rapidly?

Mr. MacGregor: On the question of investment incentive generally the answer is that tax incentives available for investment are the best in the world, and are heavily taken up. On the question of investment incentives

specifically for Yorkshire, I imagine that what the hon. and learned Members has in mind is assisted area status. He will know that the Bradford travel-to-work area will continue to have intermediate area status after 1982. The levels of unemployment are roughly on a par with those in intermediate status areas across the country as a whole. I do not think that there is a case for changing the present preferential status of Bradford.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to the representations that were made personally to his right hon. Friend last month by the West Yorkshire county council for selective assisted area status, especially in view of the decline of the textile industry and the plight of manufacturing firms? In that connection will he bear in mind the fact that unemployment in Calderdale has risen by 145 per cent. in the last year?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend has received the deputation and is giving consideration to all the points that were raised. He will reply in due course.

Later—

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help those hon. Members who tabled questions this aftermoon on certain aspects of regional policy? On Question 6, relating to West Yorkshire, several Opposition Members wished to ask supplementary questions. I realise that you wish to be fair to both sides of the House, but as no Conservative Members were in their seats to ask supplementary questions you cut off questions from Opposition Members when many of us from West Yorkshire wanted to ask them. May I ask for your guidance on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had done my usual exercise of calling hon. Members from both sides. I am always anxious that hon. Members should speak on constituency questions, but when West Yorkshire is involved at least 12 minutes would necessary forme to call everyone from that area.

Regional Policy

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the present balance between regions in the allocation of State assistance to industry.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the working of the Government's regional industrial policies.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Government's regional policy.

Mr. Tebbit: I am satisfied that regional industrial policy is now more effective for being concentrated on the areas of greatest need.

Mr. Viggers: In considering further appeals for regional aid, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the South many companies, particularly in consumer electronics, are finding that their fiercest competition is. coming from within the United Kingdom, from foreign-owned companies set up in regions other than the South with Government money? Will he bear in mind that there is a risk that Government money will be used to export unemployment from the North to the South?

Mr. Tebbit: I take my hon. Friend's point, but that is not the usual circumstance. Regional development grants


are available automatically to British or foreign companies that wish to set up in development areas. Selective aid is a different question and there we can bear in mind considerations of the sort that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Dormand: In spite of the answer that the Minister gave to the first question, is he aware that the new regional policies that were introduced with a fanfare in 1979 are proving to be a dismal failure in the Northern region? Has he seen the recently published figures from the Business Statistics Office, which show that investment in the North has decreased substantially in the past two years? What will he do about the increasing number of fly-by-night operators, who grab all the regional development grants they can and in a short time close down, leaving behind the problems of employees without jobs, redundancy payments and all the other rights?

Mr. Tebbit: On the latter point, I think the hon. Gentleman is mis-stating the position. He knows, because I have written to tell him, that in such circumstances within up to four years there is a clawback of the grants that have been made. Thus, the position is not as he sets it out. He should realise that during 1979–80 alone the expenditure per head on regional preferential assistance to industry in the Northern region was £48. That is £48 per head of taxpayer's money. That is vastly greater than in any other region of Great Britain.

Mr. Knox: How can my hon. Friend be satisfied with a regional policy under which the town of Biddulph in my constituency receives no special help, even though the level of unemployment has risen from 130 in February 1974 to over 800 now?

Mr. Tebbit: I am satisfied with it because the town of Biddulph is not an isolated community on an island. It is part of the Stoke-on-Trent travel-to-work area, and its fortunes are adjudged in that light.

Mr. William Hamilton: What criteria does the Department use in assessing the success or failure of its regional policy?

Mr. Tebbit: The answer is the extent to which the regional imbalances within the United Kingdom can be eased by Government action, but the most important part in easing those imbalances is that the work forces and the managements in the areas concerned should set out to please their customers.

Mr. Penhaligon: Earlier today the Minister indicated that if a foreign company came into an area to develop it would receive aid through the development grant system? Will he explain, therefore, why any foreign company that comes to my constituency and wants to develop mining is excluded from that enterprise, when clearly mining is an industry natural to my part of the country and, therefore, might be inclined to grow?

Mr. Tebbit: Extractive industries have always been excluded. That is not necessarily a long-term good answer, but it must be borne in mind and considered whenever we consider the pattern of regional incentives.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the removal of assisted area status is having a detrimental effect on the EEC aid that certain of those areas could obtain if the status had not been removed from them? In view of the high unemployment that is arising in certain

of those areas where assisted area status has been removed, will he consider the facts before the final decision is made in 1982?

Mr. Tebbit: As my right hon. Friend has made plain, we are always prepared to consider assisted area status in the light of long-term changes. My hon. Friend should not assume that aid that comes to us from the European Community is of itself free. The money has to be raised by taxpayers across Europe. We contribute a not insignificant share of that money.

Dr. John Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether regional policy is effective depends largely on companies believing that it will be stable and that it will not continually be altered? Were not the first blunders of the Government to reduce regional incentives and resources for the regional role of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh development Agencies? Have the Government not already admitted those errors by introducing recent changes in the Industry Bill to reverse the situation?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What about the regional employment premium?

Dr. John Cunningham: If the Minister believes what he says about the effectiveness of the Government's regional policy, why, in regions such as the North, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said, is unemployment inexorably mounting?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the history of the twists and weaves of such absurd taxes as the selective employment tax. He seems to have forgotten the regional employment premium. He counsels me not to keep making changes. As far as I can I shall take that counsel from him, but, equally, I have to consider the particular circumstances of some areas on their merits.

Small Businesses (Loan Guarantee Scheme)

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to be able to announce details of the loan guarantee scheme for small businesses.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government hope to announce a decision on a loan guarantee scheme shortly.

Mr. Heddle: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, and without wishing to peer more closely into his immediate political crystal ball, may I ask if he agrees that the broad, resilient, but patient shoulders of small businesses have for too long borne the major brunt of the recession and the belt and braces attitude of the banks? Is he aware that the time cannot come too quickly for the announcement to be made? Does he further agree that when it is implemented the loan guarantee scheme should go to manufacturing and productive industry that is capable of creating jobs, and not to those who specialise in share and property speculation, as may have happened 10 years or so ago?

Sir Keith Joseph: I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend think that a loan guarantee scheme can be as important as lower interest rates and greater bank finance in general?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that lower interest rates, provided that they reflect the market, would be a great help to industry, large and small.

Telecommunications

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action the Government are taking to encourage overseas telecommunications companies to establish plants in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: In general we welcome investment from overseas which contributes to our industrial performance, increases employment and brings in new technology. I am confident that the new regime for the attachment of equipment to the telecommunications network, which will be introduced once the British Telecommunications Bill becomes law, will lead to increased investment in the telecommunications industry.

Mr. Trippier: Does my hon. Friend welcome the decision by Mitel to construct a new factory in South Wales?

Mr. Baker: I welcome it most warmly. This investment is likely to produce between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs relatively quickly. It is a good example of what I think will happen when we have a liberalised regime for the supply of equipment to the British Post Office.

Mr. Foster: Why does not the Minister considerably increase British Telecommunication's borrowing limit, since that would enable it to take place investment which on all criteria is commercial and which would greatly assist employment in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency?

Mr. Baker: An announcement was made on Friday about the EFL for this year. That was directly determined by investment considerations. The future level of the limit is a matter that I examine regularly and bear very much in mind. In the British Telecommunications Bill I accepted an amendment that would allow British Telecom to go to the market rather than to the Govenment for money. That is permissive, of course. It depends upon Treasury approval.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister have discussions with British Telecom to discover why it is importing telephones for its special range from Southern Ireland? Is not that the kind of manufacturing that could usefully be undertaken in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Baker: I shall certainly look into that. I was not aware of that particular example.

Vehicle Construction Industry

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement about the prospects of the vehicle construction industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): The future of the motor manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom depends upon its ability to offer competitive products to the satisfaction of the consumer. There are encouraging signs that progress is being made in this respect.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister support the efforts of the Scottish TUC in pointing out to the French presidential

candidates that the closure of Linwood would be a disaster not just for Scotland, but for the French motor industry—a view that is shared by French trade unionists? Will the Minister therefore consider the possibility of a new joint approach to Peugeot-Citroen by the British and French Governments to try to save the 5,000 jobs at Linwood and the thousands of other jobs that are at stake in related industries.

Mr. Marshall: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but the question that he puts about the presidential candidates is not for me. The rest of his questions are matters for the PSA, but the Government are continuing discussions with it on the implications of the Linwood closure.

Mr. Stokes: Do not BL's prospects depend upon making vehicles at a profit which the public at home and abroad want to buy and which are backed by a first-rare after-sales service?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend has as usual said a considerable amount.

Mr. Barry Jones: To what extent will the Government influence the location of the Nissan car plant project? Will the steel rundown areas, with their high unemployment rates, be considered? What locational qualities does the Minister believe Nissan will look for?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this will be a decision for Nissan, but the representations that he, some of his hon. Friends and some of my hon. Friends have made will be taken fully into account by the company. However, Nissan must look for a location that makes the best sense to it industrially and commercially, and the history and background of the industry will be important in that regard.

Manufacturing Output

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of the likely trends in manufacturing output through 1981.

Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until tomorrow, when the latest forecast of manufacturing output will appear in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Until then I have nothing to add to the answer given to him on 12 January.

Sir David Price: In anticipation of tomorrow's statement, does my hon. Friend agree that the only people who can safely secure a reflation in the Western World economies are the fat cats in the Middle East? Within that context, does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come for the Government to concentrate a little more on the public sector capital investment programme and that this would be of substantial help to manufacturing industry, without being inflationary? Will my hon. Friend bring forward some major programmes along those lines?

Mr. MacGregor: If by his first remark my hon. Friend means that the doubling of oil prices over the past 18 months has been a material factor in the present world recession, I agree with him. I have noted his comments on the second point, but he will understand why it is not possible for me to say anything today.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that tomorrow's statement is hardly necessary, because every independent


body has forecast a catastrophic decline in output and industrial production next year? Will the hon. Gentleman convince his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that new initiatives are necessary, before it is too late to save British Industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I think it would be right to say that quite a lot of what has been happening over the past 18 months has been beneficial for the future competitiveness of British industry. British industry wants most of all to see a reduction in interest rates, which will depend on the ability to contain public expenditure, an action for which it also calls. That is the direction in which the Government are aiming.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Bearing in mind that we shall have known long before tomorrow how savagely the North-West has been hit by the decline of manufacturing output in the textile and footwear industries, does my hon. Friend agree that the North-West should receive a higher proportion of United Kingdom and EEC regional aid?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that the purpose of regional policy is to assist areas that have particularly high levels of unemployment. As was made clear in earlier answers to questions, the Government look at the overall position in relation to regional aid and assisted area status, but there must be significant evidence of long-term change in any particular area before that status is changed.

Mr. Orme: Will the Minister acknowledge that much of the responsibility for what has happened during the past 18 months lies at the door of his Department? It is no good his putting that off until tomorrow's Budget Statement. We have seen the reports by the TUC and the CBI, which make a gloomy forecast for industry in 1981. What action will the Minister and the Secretary of State take?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already indicated that what can eventually be done on interest rates at some point will be of considerable assistance. Some of the reports that have been made in the past few weeks in relation to the Budget Statement have urged much higher Government expenditure and a much larger public sector borrowing requirement, but that would not be in the interests of manufacturing industry because it would add significantly to levels of inflation, when inflation is falling in accordance with one of the major desires of British industry.

Public Sector Contracts

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress his Department is making in ensuring that the specifications for all public-sector contracts are based on existing and commonly used British Standards.

Mr. MacGregor: The Department stresses the importance of writing contract specifications by reference to British Standards in the course of its dealings with public sector bodies. I believe that progress in this direction is being made, although such practices can change only gradually, and there will be many purchases for which British Standards are not available.

Mr. Morris: I understand that there was a meeting recently with the Department of the Environment to ensure that public sector contracts in local government and the

development corporations were to be within the confines of British Standards. Rather than believing and hoping, what monitoring will the Department do to ensure that where British Standards are available they will be the basis of future contracts?

Mr. MacGregor: The Department has recently consulted the NEDO sector working party in order to assess the progress made since it first reported to the Warner committee on this subject. A more systematic assessment—probably by NEDO—will be needed before we have enough information to plan positive remedial action, but my hon. Friend may be assured that monitoring is taking place.

Mr. Palmer: Will the Minister look into the possibility that the present activities and standards of the British Standards Institution are inadequate for modern needs? Does not that need looking into?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the responsibility for the British Standards Institution belongs to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are passed on to him.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of the trouble arises when British Standards specifications are written in consultation, or largely in consultation, with monopoly purchasers such as the CEGB and the area boards? That is an example that I urge my hon. Friend to look into. For example, the transformers which accord with British Standards cannot be sold overseas because they are so specialised to the British monopoly buyer.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly look into the point.

Robots

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action Her Majesty's Government is taking to encourage the use of robots in industry.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: My Department provides support for awareness, research, use and manufacture of robots. In addition, the Science Research Council looks ahead to the next generation of robots with its recently launched academic-industrial partnerships programme. Altogether, current Government support is running at approximately £1.3 million per annum.

Mr. Mills: My hon. Friend may realise that constituents in the West Midlands and elsewhere will be reassured by what he has said. Does he accept however, that the introduction of robotics, not only in the car manufacturing industry, but in the components industries, is so vital a matter that he should consider making direct grants for the purchase of such robots, especially in the West Midlands?

Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that such support is available from my Department. Grants are available for the trial purchase of robots and robotic equipment, especially in the engineering industries, which are common in my hon. Friend's constituency. Unless Britain adapts and uses this sort of equipment, we shall lose in the competitiveness race.

Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that it would hardly make sense if Nissan-Datsun, assuming that it is located


in an assisted area, were to receive 40 per cent. grants towards the cost of automation, while such assistance is denied to companies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and in mine which will be competing with Nissan-Datsun? That sort of approach does not add up.

Mr. Baker: That is a question of regional policy rather than of robots and robotics. It was answered effectively, I thought, by my hon. Friend earlier.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of what is happening today in the public sector, will my hon. Friend tell me when it is proposed to introduce robotics or robots into the Civil Service at Government level? Does he agree that if that were to happen it might result in the giving of better advice than has been proferred in the last year or so.

Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that there are certain human activities that are not applicable to robotics.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of the pioneering work in the development of robotics was carried out in this country, yet we lag behind similar countries in their application? Does he agree also that it is often the case that British inventions are not developed in Britain beyond the innovative stage? Does he further agree that his reply, which suggests that £1·3 million is being devoted by the Government to this activity, is trifling compared with what the Japanese and the French are doing?

Mr. Baker: I agree broadly with the hon. Gentleman. I am anxious to increase this programme. What one lacks more than anything are ideas. Japan has as many robots or robotic machines in use today as has the rest of the world put together. We cannot afford to be complacent about this situation.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the cost per head of the population since 3 May 1979 of the nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I estimate that the cost per head of the population of British Shipbuilders and the British Steel Corporation during the two financial years 1979–80 and 1980–81 will be approximately £45.

Mr. Marlow: If my mathematics are right, I think that that represents about £180 per family of four in the country. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure doting paterfamilias up and down the country that this investment being made on their behalf will show a good return and an even better return than if the money had been put into private industry?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that this figure, taken per head of the population, is, in one sense, slightly misleading. Bringing it back to the wage earner, as he does, puts the matter more into perspective. As to his hopes and our hopes for the future, time alone will tell, but my hon. Friend is aware of the arguments that are put in these matters.

Dr. John Cunningham: Instead of indulging in snide criticisms of and carping about public sector industry, would not a better approach, in the taxpayers' interest, be for the Government to give these industries some support?

Is it not silly for the Government to put in taxpayers' money at the level that is now taking place and then continually carp about the industries and their managements, which, in the main, have been appointed by this Administration? Would it not make more sense if, instead of accepting criticisms of British Shipbuilders, the Government went out to get more orders for British Shipbuilders—for example, the Occidental order for a £50 million platform which, it is learnt, is another order that will go to a foreign yard?

Mr. Marshall: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he comes here with his prepared lines. I have heard no criticism or carping. There has been substantial support for industry, which has been discussed in the House many times. The hon. Gentleman has not included in his thinking the intervention fund in British Shipbuilders. Substantial support is being given to the nationalised sector. The sooner that we can get to a more competitive situation the better.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: In view of this drastic figure, does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner the Government denationalise many of these industries the better? Is my hon. Friend happy with the rate at which this is happening with British Leyland?

Mr. Marshall: The Government share my hon. Friend's view that we wish to move down the privatisation route. In regard to BL, that is very much in our minds. Even in the case of British Steel, one positive development from the present arrangements is Phoenix I. We hope that there will be further progress along the same route.

Steel Industry

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement regarding the progress of negotiations on Phoenix II on joint ventures in the steel industry.

Mr. Tebbit: Discussions between interested parties are at an early stage, but I am hopeful that an agreed proposal for a joint public-private sector company will emerge.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my hon. Friend agree that if these birds are to rise successfully from the ashes it is essential that they carry with them the reputation to their customers of the private sector and not the reputation to their customers of the British Steel Corporation? If that is to be achieved, is it not essential that, in the interval, Mr. MacGregor is reminded that the way to fulfil the contract that was written with Lazard Freres is not necessarily to go round Europe trying to find the cheapest price, however ludicrous, and offering to undercut it?

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that when the new companies are formed they will carry with them the best of the reputations of both the British Steel Corporation and the private sector parts of the company. On my hon. Friend's second point, I regret to say that the state of the market in Europe in steel is still appalling, that widespread subsidies are being offered abroad, and that the price for steel is excessively low. To do something about that situation is the object of the discussions that I have had, and will continue to have, with other Ministers in Brussels.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that, in the case of Phoenix II, the reputation for the quality of the product and output of firms in the public sector is among


the highest in the world? Is he not aware of the fear that the private sector lacks the same output, capital investment and quality of British Steel in this group?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure that the chances of these companies being successful are enhanced by those who want to criticise one or the other of the prospective partners as not being up to the mark.

Mr. Emery: Will my hon. Friend answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said would be answered later? What thoughts are the Government giving to providing money for that part of the British Independent Steel Producers—BISPA—which is in competition with British Steel to enable these producers to stay in business and to compete with British Steel, considering the amount of money being given to the public sector?

Mr. Tebbit: Provided that a sensible market in steel can be restored in Europe as a whole and that subsidising can cease, I am sure that the future of private sector companies will be assured.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that no matter how ill-informed or how enmeshed in dogma are Conservative Members, the fact is that the British steel industry, public, private, or hybrid, cannot succeed unless Government policies are dramatically changed? Will he ask his right hon. Friend whether he received information that might have convinced him of that fact when he visited Rotherham on Friday?

Mr. Tebbit: That is a fairly good example of dogma, prejudice, and ill-information springing to me from the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman must know that the problems of the steel industry spring primarily from Government subsidy of steel making—all Governments have done that over many years—and a resolute refusal on the part of many industries to respond in time to the need to change. We now face the need to make in a year or two changes that should have been carried out over a period of 10 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Shoplifting

Mr. Adley: asked the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Magistrates' Association to discuss sentencing policy for shoplifting offences.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): As was indicated in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 9 June last, it is not the practice to arrange meetings with the Magistrates' Association for the discussion of sentencing policy limited to a single type of offence.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many magistrates believe that shoplifting cases are the hardest on which they are called upon to adjudicate, and that in many cases the circumstances are wholly different from those of most other alleged crimes, because, for example, magistrates are often, as one put it to me, called upon to play God in adjudicating on whether there was an intent to steal? In view of the concern expressed in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and others, will my hon. and learned Friend do

his best to recognise that shoplifting is different from other criminal offences and needs to be looked at separately and specially?

The Solicitor-General: I agree with my hon. Friend that many cases of shoplifting present considerable difficulty, both in reaching a finding on whether the person is guilty, and on the question of sentencing. I am dealing only with the second point today. Of course, many would say that in every criminal offence the question of deciding what sentence to give is much more difficult than any other part of the trial. For that reason it is immensely important that Ministers should not be seen to interfere with the discretion of the courts in this matter and that the courts should have the widest possible discretion in sentencing, so that they are able to deal with the multiplicity of situations and difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: As shoplifting is now a national disease affecting people from all walks of life—indeed, it is almost a national pastime—will the Solicitor-General suggest to the Home Secretary that a new working party be set up to finalise proposals about bag parks and to consider, among other things, ways in which retailers should protect their goods on display?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for me, but I am sure that Home Office Ministers and others who are concerned will note what he has said.

Mr. Grieve: Will my hon. and learned Friend never cease to bear in mind that each and every case before magistrates, like each and every other case in any other court in the country, has to be determined on its merits and that it would be wrong to bring pressure on the justices or in any other quarter to deal with cases in a way that met with the approval of some people, but which did not meet the merits of the case?

The Solicitor-General: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is enormously important, and this is the heart of the question, that the discretion of any court on the punishment to be meted out in such cases should be as wide as possible.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that precisely because of the great difficulty, to which he has referred, in sentencing people who are prosecuted for shoplifting and the fact that so many who are prosecuted would be better treated in hospital, if he is not prepared to intervene in the sentencing process he should intervene to prevent people from being prosecuted for shoplifting when they are obviously old and ill?

The Solicitor-General: The proposition put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his question and in his early-day motion is attractive, but it overlooks the practicalities. For example, in one case that attracted a lot of publicity recently, the person concerned was neither old nor young, nor, apparently, ill.

Mr. Janner: Old and ill.

The Solicitor-General: It transpired afterwards—

Mr. Janner: No. We knew before.

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew before he might have considered taking


some action That case is merely an example of how the person concerned might not wish any such interference until he or she had first had the opportunity to establish his or her innocence.

County Courts

Mr. Archer: asked the Attorney-General what correspondence has been received by the Lord Chancellor's Department in response to the consultative paper on the proposed increase in the jurisdiction of the county court issued in July 1980.

The Attorney-General(Sir Michael Havers): There has been a good response and the writers include most of those with a close interest, including the judiciary, the legal profession and the TUC, as well as a number of other organisations and individuals.

Mr. Archer: Whatever the arguments for hearing liquidated claims in the county court, has the Attorney-General now appreciated that the costs entailed in preparing personal injury claims are often as great in the county court as in the High Court, but that a much smaller proportion of the costs is recovered? Is he aware that that is one reason why plaintiffs find the High Court more attractive. If the purpose of the proposal is to save the time of High Court judges, why not extend the existing practice of assigning circuit and deputy judges to hear personal injury claims in the High Court?

The Attorney-General: If the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is recompense for the lawyers concerned, I can assure him that the Lord Chancellor's Department has put forward proposals to simplify the county court costs scales and to increase the figures in those scales. That is under consideration and discussions are taking place. The Lord Chancellor has said that he would not wish to bring the proposed jurisdictional changes into effect until agreement on costs has been reached.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I accept the need to extend jurisdiction, but will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the difference between the methods of recovering judgments in the county court and in the High Court? Is he aware that one of the objections to the extension—a mistaken objection, in my view—is that it is so much harder to recover a judgment in the county court than it is through the mechanism of the High Court?

The Attorney-General: The Lord Chancellor has discussed the matter with under-sheriffs and their proposal to enforce the larger county court judgments is under consideration by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Can the Attorney-General give some indication of when the discussions based on the Green Paper are likely to be concluded and what sort of time scale he has in mind for legislation?

The Attorney-General: It is hoped that the Lord Chancellor will be in a position to announce his decisions shortly. It is certainly planned that the necessary steps should be taken as soon as possible after that.

Custodial Remands

Mr. Soley: asked the Attorney-General to what extent the further reductions of waiting time in prison before trial or hearing mentioned in his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General's Answer on 5 February, Official Report, c, 185, are being realised.

The Attorney-General: The average waiting time in England and Wales between committal for trial and the start of the hearing for defendants in custody dealt with in the fourth quarter of 1979 was 11·8 weeks. The corresponding figure for 1980 was 10 weeks—a reduction of 15 per cent. In the South-East, the corresponding figures were 16·8 and 13·8 weeks, which amounted to a reduction of 18 per cent.

Mr. Soley: I welcome the reductions, However, is it not true that there are still a considerable number of people who have been in prison awaiting trial for more than a year? When can we expect that situation to end, or at least to be an extremely rare exception?

The Attorney-General: The problem is that, to take 1980 as an example, the number of cases committed for trial was up by 12 per cent. on the previous year, though the number of cases outstanding at the end of the year was 1,100 fewer. A number of new courts have been built and are planned to be built and will be staffed, but that cannot be done overnight.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the waiting time in Northern Ireland prisons is being reduced?

The Attorney-General: We are pleased with the consequences in Northern Ireland, because the waiting times have been reduced more markedly there than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Morris: Since the Government are rightly anxious to lower the prison population, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult and advise his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the effect of the case of the Queen v. Nottingham Justices, which has seriously undermined the scope of the Bail Act and significantly curtailed the ability of an accused person to have his remand in custody reviewed at frequent intervals? Does he agree that unless something is done, it will inevitably lead to an increase in the prison population?

The Attorney-General: As I understand it, this is a case in which an identical bail application was made on a number of occasions, and after the third application the justices refused to consider the case because there had been no change of circumstances. Apparently, that refusal was approved by the Divisional Court. It may go further, but in the meantime, I shall keep a close eye on the matter.

Palace of Westminster (Picketing)

Mr. John Stokes: " On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice earlier, but I should like to know whether it is compatible with the dignity and independence of Parliament that entry to the Palace of Westminster should be picketed?

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that hon. Members were picketed on their way in? I can only express a personal opinion, as the guardian of the House. If anyone tries to stop hon. Members—[Interruption.] Order. If the question is that hon. Members were asked not

to come in—[HON. MEMBERS:"NO."]—it would be undermining our democratic system. If that were not the question, and the pickets were just standing there, I am afraid that it is an old custom that has gone on since the time of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster.

Mr. Stokes: You asked me a question, Mr. Speaker. Before entering, I was asked whether I would read a piece of paper. I do not wish to be asked to read a piece of paper before coming here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is different. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that that is different from an attempt to stop an hon. Member from coming to this free Parliament.

Cable and Wireless

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I wish to make a statement on Cable and Wireless. On 2 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry told the House that in the British Telecommunications Bill the Government had included a clause broadening their powers to dispose of shares in Cable and Wireless.
Since then we have been considering, in close consultation with the company, whether and how shares might be sold. Before reaching a final conclusion we consulted, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, all the Governments of the 30 or so countries in which Cable and Wireless operates telecommunications services under a Government concession. No objections have been raised to the Government's proposals.
The Government have now decided to make a public offer for sale of just less than 50 per cent. of its shares, subject to obtaining the necessary powers in the British Telecommunications Bill. We and the company are agreed that when shares are offered for sale special arrangements will be made for employees to acquire shares.
Cable and Wireless already enjoys a large degree of commercial freedom. The Government intend to refrain from using their rights as a shareholder to intervene in the company's commercial decisions. Cable and Wireless will be freed from the close relationship that exists between the Government and public corporations, which must on occasion constrain the company from being wholly responsive to market forces. The part-ownership formula that we have decided on will follow broadly the precedent set in the case of BP, leaving the Government with a major shareholding capable of safeguarding overseas Governments' interests, as necessary.
The chairman and court of directors of Cable and Wireless are in agreement with this line of action. Cable and Wireless has had a long record of achievement both in private hands and, since 1946, as a public sector company. The proposed sale of shares will create a partnership between the public and private sectors. This new arrangement will provide the commercial flexibility and access to the financial markets necessary to exploit the growth and opportunities in this rapidly expanding telecommunications sector.

Mr. Les Huckfield: The Labour Party believes that the selling of shares in a highly successful and profitable company is perhaps the silliest and the most doctrinaire activity of a Government who have now lost their way in industrial and economic policy. Is the Minister aware that the original reason for public ownership was that the Lord Reith mission encountered complete unanimity among all Commonwealth Governments that all these matters were too sensitive for purely commercial exploitation? Is he really saying that adequate consultation has taken place, when more than 70 Governments—not 30—are involved? Is he making this statement when no assurance or guarantee has yet been given that these shares will not finally be owned and controlled by foreign purchasers? Finally, is this not one more act of a Government who are prepared to give away prize sectors of the British economy, with good growth prospects in technology, for purely short-term and doctrinaire reasons?

Mr. Baker: My reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about consultation is that we have consulted the Governments of those countries where Cable and Wireless has a Government concession. In the other countries where the company operates it does so in a competitive framework and off the commercial service. I have been involved in discussions with the Government of Hong Kong, where Cable and Wireless has its most important concession, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary led the discussion with the Government of Bahrein, which is the second most important concession. Both Governments accepted our proposals for the sale of shares. In other countries where Cable and Wireless has concessions the Governments took no objection to our proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked about shares being owned by foreigners. As nearly two-thirds of the company's employees work overseas, we should not wish to bar overseas people from owning shares in the company.
On the subject of shareholding by foreign companies and Governments, there is no indication that any Government would want to do that. It did not happen with BP. I think that it is highly unlikely that it will happen in this case, but there are some protections in the company's articles of association.
The hon. Gentleman says that we are acting in a doctrinaire way. I remind him that State ownership is doctrinaire. State ownership has dragged down this country's performance for many years. It is an extraordinarily old-fashioned dogma that the State must own 100 per cent. of everything. It is no wonder that so many of the hon. Gentleman's former colleagues have rejected his dead-end thinking and formed a party of their own.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that Cable and Wireless will be run as a business and not as some sort of organisation to be used, in terms of its chairmanship, as a depository for time-expired Labour Chief Whips?

Mr. Baker: We do not wish to interfere in the commercial decisions of the company. One of the great advantages of the sale of 50 per cent. of Cable and Wireless is that it will escape from the dead hand of the British Treasury.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman two questions. Is he aware that his last remark will be filed for future reference? Secondly, is it not true that some overseas Administrations have agreed to the hon. Gentleman's proposals for the sale of shares because the announcement in the British Telecommunications Bill that the Government are proposing, in part, to break up Cable and Wireless has damaged the company's business so much that its shares have fallen in value, thus giving overseas Administrations a bargain? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, apart from anything else that may happen in the future, what the Government have done already has inflicted grave damage on the company?

Mr. Baker: I completely refute that allegation. There is no evidence at all of that. Since the statement was made in December we have discussed this matter fully in the British Telecommunications Bill. The revenue of the company has not been affected in any way.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call all those right hon. and hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye since the beginning of questions on the Minister's statement.

Sir William Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision will be welcomed not only by Government supporters but throughout the country? As with previously nationalised industries, is not this the only way—that is, by buying shares—in which the workers can take part in the profitable organisations for which they work?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. There is good sense in this proposal by the Government. It will produce a partnership, and I am sure that many of the company's employees will want to buy shares. After all, many employees in British Aerospace have bought shares. There might be some difficulty in some countries about employee shareholdings because of their complicated tax regimes, but we are trying to find ways to meet that difficulty.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Bearing in mind the fact that the company has a return on capital of about 20 per cent., has paid a dividend of more than £10 million, and is very well geared towards self-financing, can the Minister say what effect his statement will have on the profitability of the company and the benefit that the taxpayer gets from that profitability? Will the Minister also say how much more efficient the company is likely to become as a result of the measures that he has announced, and what benefit this will be to its customers, about whom we hear so much?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that there will be a considerable benefit to all the categories to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not believe that the service will be diminished in any way. In fact, it is likely to be enhanced and improved, because there will be a much more free and commercial attitude when the company is owned partially by the private sector. That is evident. The success of Cable and Wireless in the past has been considerable. I think that its prospects in the future are even greater.

Sir Bernard Braine: Although I warmly welcome the Government's decision, may I ask my hon. Friend to clarify the position of potential overseas buyers? He will be aware of the importance of Ascension Island to the Cable and Wireless network. He will know that Ascension Island is a dependent of St. Helena and that St. Helena provides the labour employed on Ascension. Will he assure us that St. Helenians will be able to acquire shares in an interest that is so close to their hearts?

Sir William Clark: And the Falkland islanders.

Mr. Baker: I am not aware of the tax position on St. Helena. However, the intention in such cases is that it will be possible for them to buy shares.

Mr. Charles Morris: Will the Minister accept that the success of the Cable and Wireless compay has been built not only on its technical expertise but on the fact that its financial structure has been guaranteed by the British Government? Does he also accept that his statement today will be considered as a form of commercial vandalism by many who have the interests of the company at heart? In refuting the point made by my

hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), will the Minister confirm that since clause 76 appeared in the British Telecommunications Bill the Cable and Wireless franchises in Hong Kong, Barbados and Bermuda have been under financial attack?

Mr. Baker: As for the Cable and Wireless franchises in the three areas mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, long discussions have been going on with the Hong Kong Telephone Company which predate any statement by this Government on their intentions towards Cable and Wireless, so I refute that allegation. I refute also the allegation that it is vandalism. I am also glad to see that the Opposition Front Bench have not undertaken to renationalise the shares.

Mr. David Penhaligon: What is the Government's valuation of this company? Can they also let us know what percentage of the shares sold they expect to go to British employees?

Mr. Baker: I could not give an estimate on the latter point, but shares will be made available on a wide basis to employees. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
As for the proceeds, the amount, that a sale of shares raised would depend on market conditions prevailing at the time. I am not prepared to speculate. The market knows that Cable and Wireless is a successful company, and I expect the shares to be an attractive investment. I hope that the total net proceeds to the Government will be more than £100 million.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: May I add my congratulations on this welcome measure, especially the opportunity that it gives to employees of Cable and Wireless? Can my hon. Friend say why it was not possible to put a greater percentage of the shares on the market? Will he undertake to advise us that this step towards privatisation could well be copied in other sectors of the nationalised industries?

Mr. Baker: Yes. The Government are reviewing constantly areas where such opportunities can arise.
My hon. Friend asked me why it had been decided to sell just short of 50 per cent. of the shares. It was a fine judgment that we took that at this stage it was best to go down what I might call the BP route. But that does not preclude the sale of further shares in future years. We want to assure the Governments who give consessions to Cable and Wireless that there is responsibility and stability there. That sort of shareholding does that. As I have said before, I can assure the Opposition that the services that Cable and Wireless have given in the past will be improved substantially when this has happened.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister explain how public ownership has dragged down Cable and Wireless over the past 30 years?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has to envisage how much better it would have done if it had been in private ownership. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at all the other areas in the public sector where enterprise has been dragged down by 100 per cent. State ownership.

Mr. Michael Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement today, following the successful launch of British Aerospace. However, is not the essential element that, as foreign concessions are so important to Cable and Wireless, in any


future sell-off as announced today those Governments who wish to take up shareholdings should be enabled to do so, with the caveat that more than 50 per cent. of the ownership will remain in British hands?

Mr. Baker: That raises complicated and difficult questions if we envisage other Governments holding shares or parts of the shareholding in a company of this kind. We have to bear in mind such considerations as whether they would want similar shareholdings in neighbouring countries, or countries with which they might not have very good relations. I do not envisage Governments holding blocks of shares in Cable and Wireless. That is highly unlikely. Certainly we have not been asked for any so far.

Mr. Michael English: Will the Minister assure us that these capital proceeds will not be used for revenue purposes? I am sure that the Minister is aware that a company director who used capital proceeds for revenue purposes would be put in gaol, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish the Government to act in a way that would be criminal if done by a private person.

Mr. John Evans: We should like to see them all in gaol.

Mr. Baker: I do not want to act in a criminal way. I am acting as a public benefactor. The question raised by the hon Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) must be directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since he will be the recipient of the funds.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on this rolling back of the State and this adhering to our electoral manifesto. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to assure the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) that, although it might be even more desirable to sell off loss-making sectors of the nationalised industries, the trouble is that no one wants to buy them?

Mr. Baker: Yes. That is the dilemma.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Since previous Conservative Governments under Churchill, Macmillan, Douglas-Home and the hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr.

Heath) did not seek to denationalise this industry, does not it appear that the Government are being dogmatic? Why do they choose a time to sell off these public assets when the private sector is facing almost total collapse and when many industries are collapsing because they are failing to attract investment?

Mr. Baker: We now come to the judgment that there are advantages to the company and to the country in doing this.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that the situation gets worse with every answer that he gives? Is he aware that he keeps revealing that he does not understand that this company has never been a public corporation? It is a limited company, the shares of which are owned by the Government, so it already has maximum commercial freedom. Is the Minister aware that the provisions in the intended articles of association offer no legally watertight formula against foreign control and ownership, so he has given no real assurance against interests abroad gaining majority influence? Finally, on the question of renationalisation—I am not dodging the issue—is the Minister aware that every potential purchaser of the shares should be aware of the commitment and policy of the Labour Party, which has been clearly stated in the House and outside the House?

Mr. Baker: In the past, Governments have restricted the commercial freedom of Cable and Wireless. The Government of whom the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) was deputy leader did the same. Does the hon. Gentleman remember the complaints made by Lord Glenamara about the level imposed by the Government upon the fees of directors of Cable and Wireless? There are many other examples of constraints. As for foreign shareholdings, there are provisions in the articles of association that are of some value, but I shall consider that matter again. With regard to renationalisation of those shares, is the hon. Gentleman saying that a Labour Government of which he would be a member—provided one were re-elected and wanted to renationalise those shares—would have as one of their first priorities the repurchase of the shares of Cable and Wireless from the host of small shareholders, insurance companies and pension funds? If the hon. Gentleman believes that he is being not only stupid but naive.

Standing Orders No. 9 (Applications)

Mr. Speaker: I have received notice of three applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall call them in the order in which they were submitted to me. I remind the hon. Members concerned that they must make out a case as to why an emergency debate should be granted.

Ransome Hoffmann Pollard, Northampton

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened closure of RHP in Northampton with the loss of 340 jobs.
That factory is the most productive in its field. It does not pay astronomic wages. It has highly skilled employees and an exemplary record of industrial relations. Until this year it has been profitable. What is so specific and important about this threatened closure when, sadly, factories throughout Europe are closing down daily during the recession? In addition to the £300 million that it will cost the Government in redundancy payments, the probable £400 million that it will cost in unemployment pay, and the additional £¾ million—part of which could be spent on saving the factory—what is the argument for saying that the factory should be saved? It lies in the product—water pump bearings.
This factory is unique. It is the only factory in the country that makes water pump bearings. It is a very special sort of bearing. It has two rows of ball bearings inside and one race on the outside. The product requires special machinery and special skills to manufacture it.
The closure is proposed for two reasons, one of which is the recession. The other is the strength of sterling. One reason may endure, but both will not continue together. In normal circumstances one would expect a company in the private sector to rescue the factory, but there are difficulties now.
Why should we save this factory? I believe that we should do so because if we lose it we shall lose one of the two factories in the whole of Europe that can produce this piece of equipment. It has 30 per cent. of the European market. A factory in Germany has 50 per cent. of the European market. If we lose the factory, the German plant will have the monopoly in Europe. Over half the factory's products are exported—over £3 million a year. There are also severe military implications. This equipment is used in military vehicles, armoured personnel carriers and so on. If we lose the ability to make the equipment in this country, our Armed Forces will be dependent to an extent on companies outside this country. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider that we should have an emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened closure of RHP in Northampton with the loss of 340 jobs.

I listened with care to what the hon. Member said. Whenever jobs are lost it is a matter of deep concern for all hon. Members. However, the House knows that I am directed to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened carefully, but I, have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Civil Service (Dispute)

Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
the industrial action taken today by civil servants and the consequent disruption of essential services.
I know that you would not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to explain to the House why the strike need never have taken place had it not been for the arbitrary and unilateral action of the Government. You would be even more indignant, Mr. Speaker, if I tried to quote from a letter written by the Prime Minister in the run-up to the election, in which she led the civil servants to believe that the Pay Research Unit would be sacrosanct to a new Conservative Government. However, since I want your support this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I shall resist my Celtic temptations and confine myself to the three issues of the specific nature, the importance, and the urgency of this application.
The subject is specific. I need to establish that it is important that we have a debate, that it is even urgent that we have that debate.
The tape refers to a massive response to today's strike call. It is important to bear in mind that this is the first time that all nine Civil Service unions have agreed to respond to a strike call. Therefore, the dispute is important in scale.
The matter is also important because today's one-day action launches a long-term programme of selective action. As a result of today's events, all major airports are at a standstill, with questions arising about the adequacy of air traffic control for aircraft operating out of regional and civic airfields. Passengers are entitled to know what assessment the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Trade have made of the adequacy of the air traffic control system. No one wants to scaremonger, but only just over a year ago there was a major accident in similar circumstances in France.
The matter is economically important, because the Civil Service unions claim that their action will prevent the collection of revenue by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the rate of £1,000 million a week for the duration of the strike. The matter is economically important to business men, because at Companies House the microfiche operators are on strike. Whereas, normally, 50,000 searches take place a week—searches that are essential for the conveyancing of commercial property, for commercial sales and share transactions—those searches will not be able to take place.
If those were the important issues on which I was making my submission, Mr. Speaker, I would fully understand if you said that they might be important but that you could not accept that they were urgent. I suggest that there are two other factors that make the case that this application is both important and urgent.
The first relates to defence. NATO has just started its two-yearly"Wintex" operation, an exercise that has been described as a"dry run" for total war and its aftermath, an attempt to assess the effect of such a war and the ability of the nation to deal with its aftermath. Although no one wishes to contemplate such a horrific event, one can understand the need for such testing of preparations.
It is perhaps poetic that even the Prime Minister and the President of the United States are involved in the exercise. In view of some of their statements, one is inclined to feel that it could hardly be realistic if they were not so involved.
There is a risk that that supremely important NATO exercise will be endangered and disrupted. Apparently, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that even the one-day strike today will have a serious effect. The selective action that is due to follow will exacerbate the situation. Computer operators at key naval supply centres will be on strike, and even in the normal circumstances of the exercise those supply services would have been under strain. Now, they will almost certainly collapse.
The unions have banned on-call and standby working for their members in areas covered by the exercise, yet this exercise requires 24-hour readiness. Therefore, Britain will lose the value of the exercise. Finally, maintenance engineers are on strike at a key RAF communications centre at Portreavie, which again will undermine the military exercise.
The second reason why the matter is urgent as well as important is tomorrow's Budget. According to reports on the tape, the Customs and Excise staff are determined to"disrupt tomorrow's business". I have already mentioned that as much as £1,000 million revenue a week could be lost to the Chancellor as a result of this action. Tomorrow afternoon, as soon as the Chancellor takes his seat after making his Budget Statement, there will be a walk-out in those offices which normally implement Budget decisions. That means that implementation will be at risk.
This is not just an economic consideration, but an important constitutional matter. The House should therefore have an opportunity to debate the effect upon the defence system and upon the Budget and the other repercussions of this dispute. I believe that the fact that the Budget is tomorrow and that"Wintex" is already under way give urgency to what is clearly an important dispute. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give us permission to debate the issue today.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the industrial action taken today by civil servants and the consequent disruption of essential services.
I listened carefully to the serious case that the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the whole House. He will be aware, as the House is aware, that I do not decide whether this matter should be debated. The House has limited my discretion to deciding whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow.
I listened with anxious concern to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Northern Ireland (Constitution)

Mr. James Kilfedder: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland posed by the current talks of the Anglo-Eire study group and in particular the revelation in the Irish Press at the weekend that the study group is considering the option of a federal Ireland.
This matter is urgent and also important. My application today follows a number of pleas, all unsuccessful, to the Government to reveal the substance of the talks between the Prime Minister and Mr. Haughey. Those talks were followed by a communique which was so vague as to allow Ministers of the Eire Government to claim that the Republic had achieved a significant breakthrough over the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. That claim was denied by the Prime Minister on her recent visit to Northern Ireland and every reasonable person in the Province is anxious to believe her in this matter.
However, the Irish Press at the weekend dramatically rebutted the Prime Minister. It must be remembered that the Irish Press is the official organ and mouthpiece of the Fianna Fail party, which is the governing party in Eire. That newspaper often has access to Government information which is not available to other newspapers.
Finally, this matter is of the utmost urgency. Great disquiet is felt by many reasonable and responsible people in the Province who are not guilty of hysteria in any way. There is therefore a need to debate the matter urgently so that the Government can reveal what has been discussed in the Anglo-Eire study group and can be pressed to give agreed guidelines within which the study group is operating—and so that the House can decide whether the parameters are so wide that a federal Ireland is or can be discussed by the study group.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) also gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat of the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland posed by the current talks of the Anglo-Eire study group and in particular the revelation in the Irish Press at the weekend that the study group is considering the option of a federal Ireland.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, especially his references to recent speeches that have been made. The House knows that I am instructed to give no reasons for my decision. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's application does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: In order to save time, I shall put the Question on the two motions together.

Ordered,

That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Mortgaging of Aircraft (Amendment) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 31 March 1981.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to vary the order in which the Bill is, by virtue of the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 22 January, to be considered by the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may vary that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—


(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill, which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next Sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
'the Bill' means the Transport Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Committee;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The House regards timetable motions, at the very least, with circumspection, and rightly so. Tabling such a motion is certainly not something that Ministers undertake lightly, and the present case is no exception. We always recognised that the Transport Bill would have a difficult time in the House because of the issues with which it deals and the controversiality of those issues. Nevertheless, we had hoped to secure its passage without such a motion.

Right at the start of this Session the Leader of the Opposition clearly outlined in the debate on the Queen's Speech the Opposition's attitude to the Bill. He said:
We shall fight it all the way."—[Official Report, 20 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 18.]

That is an entirely legitimate approach which no one complains of or criticises. It is an approach which has, in the event, been effectively implemented by Opposition Members who are serving on Standing Committee E. Their assiduousness and tactics, about which I make no complaint, produced the need for today's motion. I do not believe that Opposition Members can be really surprised that the Government have felt it necessary to ask the House to agree to a timetable motion in order to make more rapid progress.

By the end of last Tuesday's sitting, when the Government took a decision on the guillotine, the Committee had completed 17 sittings in about 55 hours, and had dealt with amendments to only five pages of the Bill. It had over 70 pages still to go. At that rate of progress, the Bill would still be in Committee well into 1982. I recognise that last Thursday, when hon. Members knew that they would have to face this debate today, they allowed the Committee to deal with three pages and 10 amendments in seven hours of debate. That emphasises the lack of progress. Even at that rate, it would be Easter before the Committee would be able to start to debate the road safety provisions.

The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have done everything that they can to be helpful to the Opposition and to co-operate with them. Explanatory notes on clauses have been issued to assist hon. Members in their understanding of the provisions. They have dealt as fully as possible with the points that the Opposition have


properly raised, even when, strictly speaking, the queries have not been entirely relevant to the Bill. They have tried to help in every way possible.

The Government have accepted three Opposition amendments outright and two others in principle with the assurance that the issues will be covered by Government amendments on Report. We have gone out of our way to deal fully and reasonably with all the arguments.

Mr. Harry Cowans: The Leader of the House makes a valid point: the Government have given way on three amendments. However, will he bear in mind that they gave way to one amendment after four hours debate? They could have accepted the amendment at the outset. Notes about previous Transport Bills have been given to Committee Members. However, notes on this Bill go only as far as part II and relevant questions have had to be asked which would not have had to be asked if sufficient notes had been issued.

Mr. Pym: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have acknowledged that the Secretary of State and the Undersecretary have been as helpful as they can to the Committee.
The Opposition oppose strongly parts I and II because they are contrary to the Labour Party's philosophy. Strong opposition and forceful debate are inevitable and appropriate. However, we had hoped that the debates would be reasonable and not unduly prolonged. The Committee will also wish to debate carefully the other important changes to transport legislation which the Bill contains, the question of road safety in particular.
I have examined the Official Reports of the Committee proceedings and I find that the Committee took 30 hours to debate part I, which contains only four, albeit important, clauses. That seems to be a long time. Clause 1 took 19½ hours. Part II is also taking a long time. The debate on the first group of amendments to part II, which deals with the name of the statutory corporation which is to be the successor to the British Transport Docks Board, took four and a half hours. I know that names are important and that the name was changed by amendment, but that was an excessive time. During that debate Government Front and Back-Bench Members spoke for 53 minutes out of a total of more than four hours.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Government Back Benchers extended the debate on the name of the successor company because their amendments were under discussion.

Mr. Pym: That is not quite right. Seven amendments were tabled by Government Back Benchers about the change of name. They were debated with Opposition amendments. The Under-Secretary and my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) spoke for 53 minutes between them. I do not think that that was unreasonable.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Pym: Perhaps hon. Members will have a chance to make their own cases later. I am not a member of the Committee. I am trying to put the Government's case for a timetable motion.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice in his weekend reading of the Committee reports that on one occasion, after a lengthy argument to leave a pier or port out of the statutory control provisions, the Secretary of State did not come into the Committee and give way until we had made a verbal trip around the Lake District? That was wasting the Committee's time.

Mr. Pym: I am sure that the Secretary of State will deal with that. I am not trying to exonerate the Government or put them in a white sheet. I am saying that the Committee is taking too long.
The next group of amendments concerned the holding company and its subsidiary statutory corporation—the successor to the British Transport Docks Board. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) introduced the group of amendments in a speech that lasted two hours and 40 minutes. Obviously there was much more that he could have said, but he generously made way for another member of the Opposition Front Bench, who spoke for over an hour. I am sure that it was a brilliant speech. I make no comment about the quality of the speech. Later in the same debate a third Opposition Front Bench spokesman made a speech. In all, the amendments were debated for eight hours. The House might feel that that was bordering on the excessive.

Mr. Cowans: The right hon. Gentleman is making a case for not wasting time. A Government Back Bencher moved the amendment to change the name of the holding company. The Opposition amendment did not change the name. At any time the Secretary of State or the Undersecretary could have intervened and accepted that a change of name was necessary. In four hours they failed to do that.

Mr. Pym: I do not think that it happened in quite that way. A Government Back Bencher tabled an amendment which was eventually accepted. However, my point is that Opposition Members, as they were entitled to do, took up five times as much time as the Government Front Bench and Back-Bench Members together. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that the debate on the group of amendments should have been concluded more quickly. That did not happen, and I do not think that it was the fault of my right hon. Friend or the Conservative Members of the Committee.
Clause 5, in its entirety, was subject to 20½ hours of debate. I know that it is an important clause, which obviously attracted a substantial debate, but that was the equivalent of eight normal Committee sittings of two and a half hours each. I think that the House will think that rather excessive.
In the Government's view, the time has come for us to ensure that the Bill makes reasonable progress. With regret, therefore, we must bring this motion before the House. I wish briefly to outline the motion. Paragraph 1 directs the Committee to report the Bill to the House by 31 March. Under paragraph 3, it will be for the Business Sub-Committee to determine the number of Committee sittings between now and then. The Government hope that the present four sittings a week will be retained until 31 March, when the motion will lead us to complete the Committee stage after the morning sitting. The motion will enable another 13 sittings to take place before Report to deal with the remaining 27 clauses and 10 schedules.


Paragraph 3 also leaves it to the Business Sub-Committee to determine the compartments in which the Bill should be divided, and when the knives should fall.
Paragraph 2(1) of the motion allots one day to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, coming to a conclusion at one hour after midnight. The Business Sub-Committee will be able to decide how the time on Report is to be apportioned.
Under paragraph 2(2) the Business Sub-Committee will, as usual, have four sitting days after the Bill is reported from Committee in which to make its recommendations. I am sure that in doing so it will wish to take full account of the desire of many hon. Members to debate constructively the important road safety measures in part IV of the Bill. That is for the Business Sub-Committee to decide. A disproportionate amount of time on that part of the Bill would be in line with the views expressed by Members on both sides of the House. However, it is a matter for the Business Sub-Committee. The motion also contains the usual provisions of a timetable motion to enable the Business Sub-Committee to determine the rate of progress in Committee, in line with the overall timetable.
Timetable motions are not popular, even if sometimes unavoidable. We believe that the motion is essential if Parliament is to consider all parts of the Bill and secure its passage. We introduced the Bill before Christmas, which gave ample time for it to be considered fully and properly in Committee. Of course, I recognise the Opposition's wish to express and to demonstrate the strength of their feelings against the Bill and against a denationalisation measure, but, in doing so in the way that they have, they have put other important parts of the Bill at some risk and have left the Government with no alternative but to bring forward the motion. It is not something that the Government wanted, but we felt that we had no other choice.
In the time that remains before Report, on the basis of the motion, we believe that the Committee will be able to do justice to the Bill. I ask the House to approve the motion.

Mr. John Silkin: The Leader of the House was his usual courteous self. As usual, he made the best of a bad job. Nevertheless, it is a bad job. At best, the motion proves what most of us already know, namely, the total ineptitude of the Government in their handling not only of the economy but of the business of the House. At worst, it demonstrates a certain cynicism by the Government towards the Opposition's rights and privileges. I am a charitable person: I think that it is a mixture of both.
We oppose the motion because it is a violation of an inalienable parliamentary right. Three rights need to be considered in any debate on any legislation. First—and this I freely acknowledge—the Government have the right to protect the remainder of their legislative programme. Strangely enough, the Leader of the House did not mention that, but it does exist. He did not mention it because, frankly, this is rather a thin year for legislation. The Gracious Speech was greeted with some enthusiasm by Conservative Members for precisely that reason. They felt that there would be more time for long recesses and easy

days than there had been in the previous Session. That, at least, is not under threat. By omitting to mention it, the Leader of the House showed that he agrees with me.
The second right—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—is that of the Government to have sufficient time for the passage of the Bill in question. That does not mean that there is a guarantee that a Bill will be passed. That would be wrong. However, they should be guaranteed the time in which such a Bill might be passed.
The third right, which has been an inalienable right as long as we have been a parliamentary democracy, is that of the Opposition to have sufficient time for proper discussion of a Bill. That right is challenged by the motion because of the Government's failures in relation to the other two rights. The Government have a positive duty to ensure that there is proper time for discussion.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: If the right hon. Gentleman is making a serious point, why did not the Opposition make out their own timetable—albeit a longer one than that of the Government? Had they done so, all parts of the Bill could have been debated fully.

Hon. Members: We did.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has led with his chin. I shall give him a moment or two to recuperate before I come to exactly that point.
I turn to the Bill itself—

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We could have agreed if the right hon. Gentleman had offered that.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak later if the Secretary of State allows him to reply.
The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that there were two major themes of the Bill: first, the introduction of private capital into State-owned industries, and, secondly, the reform of motoring laws and provisions for road safety. Undoubtedly, my eye is inexpert. Like the Leader of the House, I am not a member of the Committee. Like him, I blanched when I saw the technicalities from reading the reports of the Committee proceedings.
To my inexpert eye, there appeared to be not two but at least five major themes. However, the Secretary of State said that there were two major themes. Both of them are highly controversial, but there is a difference between them. The Leader of the House properly and fairly admits that the first theme is controversial between the parties because two philosophies confront each other. It is right that it should be fully debated on that basis. But the second theme is not controversial in the House; there is no ideological difference about it. On the contrary, such a theme is controversial on an individual basis. That is shown by the wealth of amendments from Conservative Members relating to that part of the Bill. Hundreds of amendments are still to be dealt with, but not on a party basis.
The Leader of the House admitted that ideological differences were bound to take some considerable time. However, inter-party differences on a matter such as road traffic usually take rather less time. If the Secretary of State feels that the second major theme is in danger—this was a large part of what the Leader of the House said in his opening remarks—why was it included in the Bill in the first place? Where did the pressure come from to do


that? Did it come from the civil servants? Frankly, I doubt it. I happen to know something about the Department of Transport as it was when it was even larger than it is now. Its civil servants would have applied a contrary pressure. They would have said to the Secretary of State"Do not be so silly. They are two different themes, which should be the subjects of separate Bills."
Is the right hon. Gentleman being stubborn? No, I do not think that that is being totally fair to the right hon. Gentleman. Has pressure been put on him by others who are concerned in the management of the House? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was not the Leader of the House at the time. Was pressure put on others to put everything together in a general compendium Bill? The passage of legislation is made very much easier if that is done. One has only to introduce a one-clause Bill at the beginning of a Parliament that states that anything that the Government want they can have. In that way Bills receive their Royal Assent and the Government are enabled to take administrative action. Surely that is not the basis of parliamentary democracy and never has been.
It is interesting to note that the Labour Government in which I was the Patronage Secretary—I had many dealings with the present Leader of the House when he was in his previous occupation—were faced with exactly the same dilemma. They wished to deal with two major things in their transport Bill. What did they do? They introduced two separate Bills. The first became the Road Safety Act 1967. That measure was completed in nine sittings. It contained 29 clauses as against the 10 clauses in the present Bill that relate to road safety. If the right hon. Gentleman had been allowed to proceed in that way, there would have remained for consideration a controversial Bill containing only 25 clauses.
We are bitterly opposed to the Government's proposals for the railway subsidiaries and the docks board. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that. We have always been against the sale of public assets and we have never made any secret of that. We have the right to let the country know that we are opposed to it and the right to tell the country why the policy is so wrong.
We have been guided by four main principles. First, we are against the sale of British Rail assets. We have always been against that. Secondly, we have to ensure that the industries are maintained in operation in accordance with their statutory duties. Thirdly—this is by no means unimportant—we have to secure the rights of consultation and the rights of pensions for the employees. So far there has been no debate on the pensions issue. Fourthly, we have to reduce the opportunities for single private company domination in the various transport authorities.
Those are important matters and it is the right and the duty of an Opposition to deal with them. We are opposed to the dissolution of the National Ports Council. It is not only my right hon. and hon. Friends who take that view. We contend that there should be a full examination of the proposed charges for licensing cabs and cab drivers. That constitutes a theme of its own.
What has the Leader of the House managed to tell us? He says that the progress of the Bill is too slow. Eight clauses had been disposed of by Thursday and over 108 decisions had been made. I admit that that figure includes"clause stand part" decisions, but the remaining decisions

were on amendments, and 55 amendments came from the Government and Conservative Members. I admit that some of them appeared to be trivial.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): Is the right hon Gentleman saying that they all appeared to be trivial?

Mr. Silkin: Not all, but some appeared to be trivial. Some amendments were rather important. As the right hon. Gentleman should know, and as the Leader of the House well knows, it is possible to speak on seemingly unimportant amendments for longer than two hours and 40 minutes, which was the time taken to discuss the rights of workers, an issue which is not unimportant.

Mr. Pym: I think that I am right in saying that all the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State derived from the fact that when the Bill was published he was a Minister and subsequently he became a Secretary of State. I think that they all related to that change, and they were debated together.

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has it quite right. In principle I do not disagree with him. We have both been in the House rather a long time. Alas, the grey hair begins to show. I am speaking for myself. The passage of time affects us in different ways. However, any Opposition can speak on any amendment, however trivial, for a long time. I was careful to point out—

Mr. Iain Mills: Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden) rose—

Mr. Silkin: I shall finish my sentence. I was careful to point out that the 55 amendments that originated from the Government Benches came from Conservative Back Benchers as well as from the Government.

Mr. Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the amendments on Associated British Ports were consequential? The issue was debated at extraordinary length. There was a full exploration in which both Labour and Conservative Members participated. The amendments of my hon. friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and my own amendments were totally consequential, yet there was a vote on each occasion.

Mr. Silkin: Consequential amendments feature significantly in any series of amendments. The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. He says that the amendments were fully debated. They were debated fully, yes, but not over-fully. That is precisely my argument.

Mr. Roger Moate: Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) rose—

Mr. Silkin: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), but after his intervention I shall not give way again for at least another five minutes.

Mr. Moate: I shall make the most of this opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman must not dodge the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). The issue was fully, or excessively, debated and then we had consequential amendments. What is the purpose of the Opposition voting against consequential amendment after consequential amendment on an issue such as a change of name if the object is not blatantly to waste time or to filibuster? If that is not the intention, what is the Opposition's purpose in voting against consequential amendments?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has been in this place for quite a long time. I can remember him adopting a


slightly different attitude when the Local Government Bill 1972 was before the House and when another Conservative Administration were in office. The hon. Gentleman's question deserves an answer. My memory is that there was not much, if any, debate on the consequential amendments.

Mr. Moate: Mr. Moate indicated dissent.

Mr. Silk in: Was there discussion on each of the consequential amendments?

Mr. Moate: No.

Mr. Silkin: Obviously, the Opposition had to signify what they felt about the amendments. Amendments of the type that we are discussing are often voted upon without debate in the interests of saving time. There is nothing unusual in that.

Mr. Cowans: Mr. Cowansrose—

Mr. Moate: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not give way for at least five minutes.

Mr. Cowans: What is five minutes? If some estimates of five minutes are accepted, our proceedings in Committee would now be completed. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we sat at 10.30 am on Tuesday 24 February and it was not until 5 pm that the Undersecretary of State informed us that he would accept the amendment. That is not hearsay. Do not look at the crystal ball, read the book. If that is not time-wasting, I do not know what is.

Mr. Silkin: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am glad that I gave way to him. However, I think that he must be a bit more charitable. It was not so much time-wasting. I have often noticed that Conservative Members take about seven hours longer than Labour Members to get to the point.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Mr. Kenneth Clarkerose—

Mr. Silkin: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in another three minutes.
The Leader of the House says that no progress has been made. Is he not aware that it is only a fortnight since the Opposition offered 14 clauses by 5 March? The Government have lost that. They have, incidentally, also lost a valuable day in the House by the motion. Why did not the Government accept the offer? There is plenty of legislative time to put the road safety aspect into another Bill, as I have tried to demonstrate in giving the history. The Road Safety Act 1967, under a Labour Government, did not take long to go through the House. It was only three or four weeks in Committee.
Had the right hon. Gentleman been sensible, and if our offer had been accepted, only 11 clauses would now remain to be dealt with and the Bill would come out of Committee in good time to go to another place. However, such a course may assume rather more sense and intelligence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues than has been shown during the passage of the Bill.
I give way now to the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman has now passed the point. His claim would be legitimate if time had not been wasted and we were really short of time. He is getting the flavour of our debates in Committee from the interruptions to which he is so courteously giving way.
In the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), he got to his feet halfway through. That debate was entirely taken up by the Opposition until I was able to get in at 5 o'clock. The hon. Gentleman was asked by the Opposition Whip, when he resumed his speech in the afternoon proceedings, to make sure that the debate did not run out of time. The hon. Gentleman began in the middle of a debate about which he is now complaining with a joke about the time that was going by. He immediately in the afternoon gave way to an interruption from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who began with the words:
We should not like to run out of time on the vitally important question ol the name,"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E,24 February 1981; c. 465.]
I merely intervene to supplement the hon. Gentleman's information about the Committee and to underline our feeling. At that stage of the Committee, about which indignation is now being expressed, we were, unfortunately, in the middle of blatant time-wasting. The Opposition's indignation is misplaced.

Mr. Silkin: All that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to do was to rise to say that the Government accepted the amendment. He could have done that hours before. The amendment was accepted.

Mr. Fowler: The Government amendment.

Mr. Silkin: That is right. I give way again to the Minister.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is being too courteous. The amendment was dealt with by two of my hon. Friends who intervened in the debate for only 25 minutes. The remainder of the debate was taken up by Opposition Members resisting any change of name We had to listen to hours and hours of debate before, in the end, we had the opportunity to resist. There was no way that I could concede to the proposal.

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman wants it that way, well and good. However, I gather that both sides of the Committee spoke on the matter.
I repeat that had the offer been accepted the whole history would have been different. There would have been no necessity for the motion. Indeed, there is no necessity for it now. What I am saying destroys the case of the Leader of the House from beginning to end. He is talking about a finishing date of 31 March. Had the road traffic provisions not been in the Bill, I have not the slightest doubt that we should have been well within the time scale.
Having been in Government and Opposition, I know that there are always charges of fillibustering. Why did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) speak for so long? He was dealing with a matter that was vitally important to him—perhaps more important to the Opposition than many other aspects of the Bill. He felt strongly about the matter. Sometimes speeches go on for rather a long time. However, there is all the difference in the world between the Government's ability to obtain information and that of the Opposition. Speaking from a well-prepared brief is easy enough and the Minister can be succinct. It is much more difficult to make a case as a member of the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman and I have worked for many years on a simple principle. Governments cease to be


Governments and Oppositions become Governments. The way that this Government are going, it will not be long before that change takes place. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would do well to start learning the lessons now. They will be in Opposition soon.
There has always been an argument in favour of timetabling all Bills, and I suspect that privately I carry the Leader of the House with me on this. However, if all Bills were timetabled, the first question any sensible Business Committee would ask right at the beginning would be"Why on earth put all this into one Bill? All the controversial, ideological and doctrinaire stuff is in the frst part, and then the Bill goes on to deal with non-party controversial matters. For Heaven's sake, split the Bill." As the Government did not do that, they must take responsibility. That, among other reasons, is why we oppose the Bill.

Mr. Roger Moate: I have a degree of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), not because he did not have the privilege to serve on the Committee—in that I congratulate him on his good fortune—but because he has to oppose a motion from the Dispatch Box, relying for his argument on facts given to him by his right hon. and hon. Friends. He has to argue against something that most reasonable people by now would regard as inevitable. As one of the most experienced parliamentarians in the House, he knows that when people speak for as long as his right hon. and hon. Friends have been speaking they do so with one objective—to waste time. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is also an able parliamentarian—

Mr. Gary Waller: Steady on.

Mr. Moate: —compared with his right hon. and hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman can, if necessary, compress arguments into 10 or 20 minutes, as we usually have to in the House. However, on several occasions in Committee he spoke for an hour. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke on one occasion for two hours and 40 minutes, on another for two and a half hours and on yet another for an hour and 20 minutes. Time after time the Committee was treated to excessively long speeches. The only motivation for those speeches was to waste time.
Last Thursday the immediate response of the Leader of the Opposition to the motion was to point out that there were 30 Government amendments. I have not read the Committee Hansard in detail—it is hard enough to sit on the Committee, let alone do that—but each one, I believe, related to changes of name either from"Minister" to"Secretary of State" or from"British Transport Docks Board" to"Associated British Ports". The name of the organisation is important, but arguments on it can be briefly put. It took four hours to debate one such amendment. The Opposition did not raise many objections in principle to the name"Associated British Ports". However, having had the discussion, every time that a consequential amendment came up they decided to vote against it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that such procedure has only one motivation—to waste time.
At that time there was no agreement through the usual channels, and we knew that there were no fewer than 170 consequential amendments tabled to change the name. Were we really to be faced with the prospect of 170 time-wasting votes on such a simple and trivial matter? I cannot believe that the general public watching the debate would regard that as an intelligent way to conduct our proceedings.
I referred then to the absence of trust or confidence between the two sides. That is the key point. I am not saying that, individually, the usual channels were not communicating. But once time-wasting and lengthy debates were taking place on that scale it clearly became harder and harder to reach any kind of agreement that would carry conviction with the people who really mattered in the Committee.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I had not wished to become involved in this way so early in the debate. I must put it to the hon. Gentleman, however, that there was indeed an agreement and that we put forward a most reasonable proposition. It was—that the Government could have the whole of part II, the largest part of the Bill, within one day—two sittings—of their own proposition to us. It was when that broke down, and on the decision of the Government that the late night sittings began. It had been in order to avoid that that we gave an irrevocable undertaking to finish part II only one day later than the Government's own timetable.

Mr. Moate: I am just a humble Back Bencher in all this. Like my hon. Friends, I sit largely silent while Opposition Front Bench spokesmen talk and talk. That is the sad role of a Government Back Bencher. One is aware that negotiations are going on to try to get orderly conduct of the Committee proceedings, but it becomes very difficult to know the truth of what one hears. There are charges and countercharges. It has been said that it is like relying upon two eye witnesses' accounts of the same motor car accident. It makes one worry about the truth of history. The same is true when one tries to look back to see what went wrong. Let us not count clauses or schedules. Let us consider the number of pages. After 65 hours of debate we had reached page 5 of a 77-page Bill.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to impute any lack of truth on either side. If he checks the record that is kept by both sides, or if he reads the exchanges, he will see that the truth was quite evident, adequately recorded on both sides and essentially as I have given it. But he still has to answer this question. If it was not the Government's intention from the beginning to guillotine the Bill, why did they decide, when we were within one day of their own timetable, that late night sittings, were necessary and that they could not accept our offer?

Mr. Moate: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, one usually goes into fairly late afternoon sittings and then into late night sittings, not because one knows that a guillotine is inevitable, but in order to make progress and to avoid a guillotine.

Mr. Robinson: Why did the Government not accept our offer?

Mr. Moate: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. I am simply saying that there was no progress.

Mr. Robinson: That is precisely what Opposition members of the Committee could not understand. An offer was made to deliver part [I of the Bill within one day of the Government's own timetable, but that offer was rejected.

Mr. Moate: Once trust breaks down and the usual channels fail to work, this is what occurs. It seems to me, never having been in that positon, that individual or tactical bargaining is a separate matter from an overall strategic agreement on when to conclude the Committee stage. If the Government accept a deal on any particular part, they do not know whether they will carry the Bill through all its stages in a reasonable period. At that point one needed to know whether there was to be an early conclusion of the Committee stage as a whole.
I am very sad indeed that we have reached this position. I do not like guillotine motions of any kind. The right hon. Member for Deptford said that some people believed that there should always be timetabling of Bills of this kind. I am totally hostile to that view. I believe that timetabling of the kind that we are now considering always militates against Back Benchers and plays into the hands of Governments. No matter how reasonable or sensible it may seem to allocate X hours to one aspect and Y hours to another, one knows full well that, once there is a time limit, it is easy for opponents to kill off individual Back Bench amendments and for Governments to drive out Back Bench amendments. Once there is a timetable motion, a large number of the opportunities that many of us seek to use on Report will not be open to us.
It is a tragedy that the Conservative side has come to a guillotine motion. I believe that it is due to the ineptitude of the Opposition. One person is responsible, namely, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Fumess, because he leads for the Opposition on this subject. He could have prevented some of the excessively long speeches from Opposition Members. He could have demanded that there be reasonable timetabling for the many important debates. I do not believe that he did that. I believe that he listened too much to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

Mr. John Prescott: We decide things in Committee.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition decide things in Committee. Perhaps that is a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman should have asserted his authority in leading for the Opposition in the Committee.

Mr. Albert Booth: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is clearly under a misapprehension. It was my hon. Friends who urged on me—not I who urged on them—that an offer should be made to those leading for the Government to finish clause 14 by last Thursday night. That offer was duly conveyed. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, while I have led for the Opposition on these matters, neither he nor any Minister dealing with transport legislation has had any reason whatever to believe that we would not deliver on any undertaking that we gave with regard to a timetable. The offer was made on a perfectly genuine basis. It was rejected on a basis that might be regarded as far less credible. The hon. Gentleman should ackowledge that he was wrong, first, in suggesting that I had to persuade my

hon. Friends to make the offer, which is totally untrue, and secondly, in suggesting that any breakdown of trust arose from Opposition action.

Mr. Moate: I am talking about the overall handling of the Committee proceedings, not about how one responds in a particular situation to a particular problem, such as how to deal with part II of the Bill. That is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about whether there was sufficient trust and whether the right hon. Gentleman carried sufficient authority to say that the Opposition would deliver the whole Bill in a reasonable time, giving reasonable time to debate what I personally consider to be the most important parts of the Bill. We have not even reached them yet. The right hon. Member for Deptford said that we feel strongly about the abolition of the National Ports Council. So we do. But after 75 hours of debate we have not even been allowed to reach that, due to the filibustering and time-wasting tactics of the Opposition.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred to the importance of the road safety clauses. These are desperately important matters. We should have reached those clauses by now. But we have not been allowed to reach the vital road safety aspects. Many of us suspected that the Opposition's objective was to talk for so long on the Bill that we should never reach them at all—[Hon. Members:"No."]—I think that the Opposition's motives were confused. One of their beliefs is that one can waste so much Government time as to undermine the legislative programme altogether.

Mr. Cowans: Mr. Cowans rose—

Mr. Roger Stott: From the Opposition Dispatch Box I assure the hon. Gentleman that at no stage was it the Opposition's intention to prolong the debates in Committee in order to invalidate the road safety provisions. We believe that they are extremely important and that the House should have the opportunity to debate them. I entirely rebut the hon. Gentleman's remarks. At no stage were we trying to"rubbish" those proposals.

Mr. Moate: There are two possible motives for filibustering on a Bill, as I believe the Opposition have done. One is to force a guillotine. That is sometimes an Opposition tactic because they feel that that gives them a moral advantage in some circumstances. The other is to destroy a Bill. I do not say that they wish to destroy the road safety measures, but one major objective of filibustering is for the Opposition to waste so much Government time as to endanger legislation.
Incidentally, by endangering the Bill the Opposition would thereby have jeopardised these important road safety measures. I know that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) feels strongly about the road safety measures. Filibustering is an Opposition tactic which is often used to destroy legislation altogether. The Opposition could destroy the Bill in that way, and in so doing would destroy the road safety measures that it contains.

Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his display of Back-Bench solidarity by giving way to the the Front Bench first. Conservative Members seem to be less informed than Labour Members. There was a form of agreement with regard to clause 1 and the Labour side of the Committee delivered that


agreement. At no time did the Government offer an overall timetable. They offered one in part, and naturally the Opposition responded.

Mr. Moate: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to answer those points of detail. However, I believe the hon. Gentleman to be totally and completely wrong. The Government stated at a fairly early stage what they regarded to be a sensible end date. Had we been able to agree on an end date, we would then have been able to devote the time that I want to devote to the desperately important matter of road safety.
We have spent 20 hours on clause 5. I understand the ideological importance of that clause to Labour Members. Nevertheless, I think that 20 hours is excessive. We have not yet reached other important matters, such as the question of the breathalyser and its vital importance to the nation. We have not yet reached the important question of provisional licences and the size of motor cycles, yet that is of desperate importance to millions of people. We have not yet been allowed to discuss the whole question of the points system to replace the present system of endorsements on licences, yet that is a matter of crucial importance. There are many other road safety measures that we have not yet discussed.
No doubt many hon. Members would want to discuss the question of random testing. That matter is no less controversial than the ones that we have already debated. Many of us would like to talk about seat belts and other restraints—a matter of immense controversy.
The Opposition have indulged in ill-thought-out time-wasting tactics without considering the consequences. They have carried on regardless, believing that it is their job to waste Government time. They have jeopardised the sensible and constructive debate that we could have had on these vitally important road safety measures.
I believe this guillotine to be necessary because of the way the Committee stage has been handled by the Opposition. The Bill provides an important opportunity to get some road safety measures on the statute book, and that has been jeopardised particularly by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness.

Mr. David Ennals: The points that have just been made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) prove absolutely and without question the validity of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) that road safety matters should have been included in a different Bill. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should now start addressing his own Front Bench. Regardless of the amount of time, or lack of it, that will exist in Committee for dealing with road safety issues, this House will have only one day, with an extension of three hours, to discuss the whole Bill, including road safety issues. That is absolutely inadequate.
I believe that we should have one day to discuss road safety. The people of this country would expect Parliament to give one day to consider the broad problems of road safety. There are many points in part IV which I would support, but there are some great weaknesses which need to be debated at length both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I therefore wish to concentrate on the issues contained in part IV, such as road safety and seat belts. I

believe that they are the most important provisions in the Bill. I expect that it is now too late to take part IV out of the Bill, but I hope that in reply the Minister will say that he will consider giving more time to discuss these issues.
In 1978, 348,000 people were killed or injured as a result of road accidents, at a cost of £1,293 million. That was apart from the mental and physical distress caused to families and the occupancy of a large number of hospital beds which were urgently needed for other types of orthopaedic cases. Of course, there are vital parts of the Bill which I would support, but there are two defects which we shall need to debate at length.
I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to strengthen the drinking and driving provisions in the Bill. In a recent leader the magazine"Pulse" stated:
Without stricter enforcement of the drink driving laws we are allowing people who are acknowledged not to be in a fit state to drive a car to maim and to kill others. Random breath tests are not necessary. Dr. John Havard the BMA secretary who is also an internationally acclaimed expert on drink driving legislation suggests that selective breath testing be carried out at those places and times where drivers who have been drinking are likely to be found. He calculates that for every £10 million spent on enforcing the law £100 million would be saved".
that is only one view, which could be supported by others. I wish to add a few words about the need for legislation on seat belts. The arguments for wearing seat belts are absolutely overwhelming. They are accepted by the Minister's own Transort and Road Research Laboratory, which has put countless facts at his disposal. However, he has not included this matter in the Bill. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has said that
no other single practical piece of legislation could achieve such dramatic savings in lives and serious injuries".
It has estimated that legislation would increase the wearing rate from about one-third of drivers and front seat occupants to nearly 90 per cent. and would save between 600 and 700 lives and more that 11,000 serious injuries a year.
Clearly, no amount of voluntary pleading will be enough. This issue should be embodied in law. No country has managed to achieve a high rate of seat belt wearing until the issue has become part of the law. In fact, 23 other countries, including all the EEC countries, with the exception of ourselves and one other, have already done so. Almost every industrialised country that has a large number of vehicles on the road and which cares about road safety has recognised that without legislation it is not possible to ensure that people wear their seat belts. Britain lags behind by not embodying this matter in legislation.
Moreover, the House is in favour of legislation on seat belt wearing by drivers and front seat occupants. In March 1976 the House of Commons voted in favour by 249 to 139, a majority of 110. In March 1979 the issue again came before the House on a Bill brought forward by the Labour Government. The vote then was 244 to 147, a majority of 97. In July 1979 a Private Member's Bill was carried by 139 to 48, a majority of 91. Therefore, hon. Members voted three to one in favour of such legislation. It is perfectly clear that this is something that the House wants.
At least 30 Ministers and Whips have voted on a free vote for such a measure, including the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Social Services and his whole team, and half the transport team. One half of the transport team voted one way and the other


half the other way. There are only two of them. I wish that there were a third, because I suspect that two-thirds of the transport team would have voted in favour.
On early-day motion No. 104 there are 143 signatures calling on the Secretary of State to introduce the legislation. I hope that he will see that it is an all-party motion, supported by many of his colleagues. I assure him that a new clause on seat belts will be tabled before Report. It will be on an all-party basis. If he thinks that these matters are important, whatever his personal view may be, if he is against it he needs time to state his case, just as I and others will need time to state the case for it. We are talking about lives and permanently maimed persons. He is saying that this matter, drinking and driving and all the other parts of the Bill, are to be taken on Report in one day of parliamentary time. That is ludicrous. It is a disgrace that he should suggest this sort of truncation, whatever the arguments in Committee. I am not a member of the Committee, and after hearing the exchanges that have taken place during the debate I cannot pretend that I am particularly sad that I am not.
This is a matter for Parliament to decide. What I resent most deeply about the motion is that we are being given only one day to debate the major issues, including road safety. It would be grossly irresponsible if the Government proceeded on the route that they have taken. Of course they will gut their guillotine motion, but I plead with the Secretary of State to consult his colleagues. Now that he is a Secretary of State he has even more influence than he had before. He can tell them that it will be easier in the House and in the country if we are given more than one day to debate these issues. He knows that road safety concerns the public and that there is a massive build-up of support for certain changes to ensure that we are in line with other countries. Support comes from such bodies as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Automobile Association, the association which represents consultants in accident and emergency departments, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland—I could continue, for the list is endless. There is a tremendous build-up of opinion.
I want the Secretary of State to do two things. First, I want him to ask his colleagues for more time for Parliament to debate road safety. I hope that there will be more time in Committee. Secondly, major issues divide the House—as the Shadow Leader of the House said—not on party lines but in the way that Parliament has already expressed itself. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he will ask his colleagues to give us a free vote on the issues on which Parliament in earlier votes has always had a free vote? Anything less will look as though the Secretary of State is trying to clamp down on the views of so many of his colleagues, including his Undersecretary and the whole of the health team. It is vital that he should give me that assurance when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Gary Waller: Ever since being elected to the House I have tried to see the other person's point of view. I am inherently suspicious of anyone who claims a monopoly of wisdom on any issue. I confess that I share some of the annoyance of some members of the public who listen to Prime Minister's Question Time and get somewhat impatient because they

are tired of hon. Members on both sides who shout and yell at one another and share only the certainty of being right on every issue.
When I was appointed to Standing Committee E on the Transport Bill I approached my task with a certain degree of humility. 1 do not consider myself an expert on the British Transport Docks Board. I was only too anxious to become better acquainted with the details of the subsidiaries of British Rail.
While I did not expect to find the degree of unity of purpose that exists in the Transport Select Committee, which I greatly welcome, I had hoped that there would be a recognition from the Opposition that the Government would get the legislation through the Committee, as they inevitably will, and therefore it would be sensible to try to ensure that the legislation was framed in the best possible way for the transport industries concerned and for the general public, who are extremely interested in many parts of the Bill. That, I would maintain, is one of the main responsibilities of any Opposition.
I am afraid that I have been disappointed. I have nothing against Opposition Members of the Committee, but though while I looked searchingly and long for good sense in their arguments it seemed curiously elusive. That was sad, because neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary can be accused of dogmatism. By their actions in Committee they have shown that they are only too willing to be persuaded by good arguments, provided that they are convincing. Neither has been unresponsive to argument. Neither would hang on to a premise if it was fundamentally unsound.
For some reason, the Opposition have not been willing to put forward good arguments. I find that difficult to understand. Both my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend are such good advocates that I looked forward with relish to hearing them demolish the arguments" put forward by the Opposition. But the Opposition made the task of the Front Bench team too easy.

Mr. Prescott: How would you know if you did not understand it?

Mr. Waller: Although the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he meant to refer to me.
As I have listened to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. and learned Friend in the debate I have learnt a great deal, but I have leamt nothing from the Opposition.
In the last Session I was appointed a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill that became the Transport Act 1980. Unfortunately, I seem to have spent a good deal of my parliamentary life listening to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. In the last Session the Opposition arguments were hardly concisely put, but on occasion they made out a case to be answered. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the bus industry was in disagreement with some of the Bill's provisions. On this occasion the British Railways Board welcomes part I of the Bill.
In Committee, the Opposition have almost invariably substituted quantity for quality. For the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to speak for two and a half hours on one amendment and one hour and 20 minutes on


another so-called probing amendment demonstrates an amazing degree of verbosity of the sort displayed by people in love with the sound of their own voices.
There has been no talk of strategy. If such loquacity had achieved anything I would understand, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, there are only two things that one can achieve with a filibuster. Either one delays matters so much that one puts legislation at risk—there was clearly no chance of that happening on this occasion—or one wants to achieve a guillotine. The second aim has been achieved. No other advantage could possibly be gained from the tactics displayed by the Opposition. The only result has been to make the timetable motion inevitable.

Mr. Prescott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we advanced a proposition for a timetable on the Committee stage, as we did for the Transport Bill in 1980, that the Whips came to an agreement, but that ultimately they were overruled by the Minister?

Mr. Waller: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will deal in detail with that point when he replies to the debate. The Opposition's argument now seems to be that they put forward a timetable and that because the Government were unwilling to accept it they were prepared to talk at any length to show their disapproval, even though it made the guillotine inevitable. That makes no sense to me, and I am sure that at the end of the debate it will be seen to make no sense to the majority of hon. Members.
My hon. Friends and I in the Committee have not sat silently, as Government Members do in some Standing Committees, but our interventions and speeches have been extremely brief, mostly limited to five minutes or less. For the Opposition to dream of arguing, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that Government Back Benchers are in any way responsible for the guillotine reveals the poverty of their case. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to look puzzled, but if he examines Hansard for the last sitting of the Committee, which took place after the guillotine motion had been announced, he will see that when one of my hon. Friends was speaking—briefly—to an amendment, he said from a sedentary position that it was my hon. Friends who had brought about the guillotine. That is typical of the poverty of the case advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
All this is extremely unfortunate, because, like many hon. Members from both sides of the House, I have a special interest in part IV relating to road safety. By their attitude the Labour Members of the Committee have made it inevitable that part IV will command less attention than it would have done. The hon Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) professes a great interest in road safety. He has told us that when driving on the road he never exceeds the speed limit. In that he may be unique among the members of the Committee. Regrettably, he adopts the same approach to speaking in the House and in Committee. On Second Reading he spoke for 27 minutes during the last hour before the winding-up speeches, even though Mr. Speaker had requested short speeches from both sides because a large number of hon. Members were hoping to catch his eye.

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this entirely relevant? I thought that we were

discussing events in the Standing Committee. The hon. Member is now referring to my speech on Second Reading. As there was no limit on the length of speeches on Second Reading, I had every right to speak for 27 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) will relate his remarks to the motion before the House.

Mr. Waller: Indeed I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening more carefully he would have noticed that I spoke not merely of his loquacity on Second Reading, but of his loquacity on occasions—he was not as bad as other hon. Members—in Committee.
On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman spoke of Chadwick's legislation relating to the sewerage system, of classical Greek literature, and of Mill's treatise"On liberty". The one area of which he spoke little was the contents of the Bill. In speaking for so long he prevented other hon. Members, including myself, who wanted to speak on the road safety aspects—

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already made the point that this debate is not about our Second Reading debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are quite out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) heard my ruling. If I need his help I shall ask him for it. If he can contain himself he might have the opportunity of saying what he wants to say in his own way.

Mr. Waller: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Huddersfield East, by the length of his speech on the Second Reading, prevented other hon. Members who wanted to raise the road safety aspects of the Bill from doing so. As a result of the loquacity of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and his hon. Friends, hon. Members on both sides who wanted to speak at length on a non-party basis about the road safety aspects will be unable to do so.

Mr. Cowans: I take the point that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is making about my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). My hon. Friend can, of course, answer for himself. But are not the Government, by applying the guillotine, limiting the hon. Gentleman's ability to speak on that part of the Bill that interests him? Would it not be in his interest to vote against the guillotine and thus give himself an opportunity to speak for longer?

Mr. Waller: I, too, do not like guillotines, but it is clear that no Government could allow the situation in the Committee to persist. It is clear that the guillotine was inevitable, and that is why I certainly support it.
I may have been a little hard on the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East, who is a constituent of mine—

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend may have lost the hon. Gentleman's vote.

Mr. Waller: I should be sad if that were so. Lest hon. Members think that I have been hard on the hon. Gentleman, in spite of his points of order, let me say that I find him, in my relationships with him, an agreeable


person. Perhaps I should stop there, because if I am too nice about the hon. Gentleman I may put him in some trouble in his constituency when it comes to reselection.
When the Bill is enacted part IV will inevitably attract the greatest public attention, as it already has.

Mr. Cowans: Why?

Mr. Waller: The answer is that people will be directly and immediately affected by part IV in a way that they will not be by the other parts. The beneficial results of the other parts will take longer to become apparent. Part IV will affect everybody immediately. Every motorist will be subject to the provisions of the Act and had better know what they say. The media will therefore give a lot of attention to part IV.
I am especially anxious that the growing army of motor cycle users and enthusiasts should have the satisfaction of seeing that the part of the Bill that affects them is adequately debated in Committee.

Mr. Cowans: Vote with us then.

Mr Waller: Amid the general noise that that comment provoked, a number of hon. Members said"Hear, hear." I watched to see whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East was among them, because it was he who ensured that the proposed changes affecting motor cyclists could not be adequately debated on Second Reading because the length of his speech meant that I was unable to speak about the motor cycle aspects of the Bill. Motor cyclists are entitled to information on many questions that are left unanswered by the Bill. They want to know a lot more about the two-part tests—

Mr. Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waller: The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me when he was speaking, but I happily give way to him.

Mr. Ennals: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing so. In view of his remark, why is he not on our side in wanting the Bill to have longer in Committee and, even more important, longer on the Floor of the House? These issues affect all of us, not just those who have been having their loquacious debates in Standing Committee.

Mr. Waller: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that now, but he ought to have said something to his hon. Friends who are in the Committee to prevent our reaching this stage. I assume that because he is interested in the road safety aspects of the Bill he will have been following events in Committee closely. He has had enough experience in this House to know what the result of those events would be. It was up to him to use his influence. He was in a unique position among Labour Members row in the Chamber to speak to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and to use his good offices to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to adopt different tactics on the Bill. He failed, apparently, to do so. Otherwise, we would not be in the present position.
There are a number of matters affecting motor cyclists in the Bill that deserve to be debated. Motor cyclists want to know about the requirements for provisional riders to take and pass a test if they are to continue to use the road. They want to know much more about the two-part test itself. Enabling legislation is included in the Bill, but how these provisions will work is left to the imagination. I do not blame the Government, but people are entitled to an answer and want a debate on that answer.
I have been impressed by the arguments of many motor cyclists who have expressed their concern to me relating to the Bill. They recognise the dangers that exist—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of latitude. I think that he should come back to the motion that we are debating.

Mr. Waller: I want to say why it is important that hon. Members should have adequate time to debate these aspects of the Bill. Deferring to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on the need lor a longer debate on matters that are not at present included in the Bill but could be included if new clauses were approved. I think that I shall remain in order if I stick to the narrow ground to which the right hon. Gentleman confined himself.
I know that some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Norwich, North, want to see new clauses in the Bill. The timetable vitally affects the chances of new clauses getting into the Bill. The case for the compulsory wearing of seat belts is that, in an accident, the chance of death or serious injury is greatly lessened. I do not think that any hon. Member will disagree with that contention. The real question that has to be asked is whether those countries where the compulsory wearing of seat belts has been introduced have seen any reduction in casualties.

Mr. Ennals: Yes, enormously.

Mr. Waller: The right hon. Gentleman says"Enormously". Perhaps he can tell me later how many countries he has examined. It is curious that the advocates of the compulsory wearing of seat belts always cite one State in Australia where casualties were reduced.

Mr. Cowans: Mr. Cowans On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know, whether you have the power, but is not this debate a good reason for stopping the guillotine and going back into Committee to continue discussing these points? Would that be within your power?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only try to encourage the hon. Member to contain himself within the bounds of the motion. There are times when it is difficult to see how his argument is leading towards that.

Mr. Waller: I have been careful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stay in order, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Norwich, North was careful to stay in order, when he spoke for 10 minutes exclusively on seat belts. In view of the claims made for compulsion, it is surprising that no proper, comparative research has been done. Now, however. Mr. John Adams has done some research—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever Mr. John Adams may or may not have found when he made his researches, I fail to follow how that can be relevant to the motion.

Mr. Waller: [seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well known that a number of hon. Members have given notice that they intend to table new clauses. The question whether those new clauses are ultimately included in the Bill will inevitably hang on the amount of time available. I think that Opposition Members will agree that time is the most critical factor.

Mr. Booth: It is of the essence.

Mr. Waller: It is of the essence, as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness says, whether such new clauses are included in the Bill.

Mr. Ennals: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this not becoming a filibuster by the hon. Gentleman? I spoke for 10 minutes and no more. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for nearly three times as long and is carrying on the debate in a filibustering manner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that we are not debating the merits of any part of the Bill. We must come back to the motion.

Mr. Waller: I defer to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is sad that we shall not have time to debate the important points that it appears the right hon. Member for Norwich, North would like to see debated. The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, just as those who favour the compulsory wearing of seat belts are apparently unwilling to listen to the opposition. I hope that it will be accepted that those who want compulsion and who want the new clauses have to prove their case. I recommend them to read the opposite case. Unless they are sure that the case is wrong, they have no right to pursue the new clauses—

Mr. Ennals: I shall write a paper on it.

Mr. Waller: I look forward to future discussions with the right hon. Gentleman on this point.
Fortunately, the House provides an opportunity for arguments to be assessed against one another, even if the Opposition do not always take advantage of these opportunities. It is not the timetable motion, but the manner in which the Opposition have behaved during the Committee stage that has curtailed debate on the Bill and on the points that hon. Members wanted to discuss. I am sorry that some of those points will not now be tested. I accept fully the need for the motion.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I shall be brief. I shall spend two minutes explaining why I believe that the guillotine motion should not have been introduced.
I am among those who believe that responsibility for the motion must rest with the Government. I refer to the Second Reading in its broad sense and not in the sense of those hon. Members who made long or short speeches. Hon. Members stated constantly to the Secretary of State that if the Bill was introduced in two distinct parts, one party political and controversial and the other non-controversial, there would be difficulty. Anyone could have predicted that we would be back in the Chamber at this juncture discussing a guillotine motion, not because of the activity of the Opposition but due to the manner in which the Bill was devised.

Mr. Cyril Townsend: Mr. Cyril Townsend rose—

Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way. I intend to speak only briefly. The hon. Gentleman will have his turn.
The seeds of the guillotine debate existed at the Bill's inception. It is not only the case that there are two distinct parts of the Bill that are incompatible—although it is a great shame that the Bill was introduced in this form—but that there are five distinct Bills in the first part of the Bill dealing with separate parts of the transport world, the docks, the ports and British Rail. It is due to the broad range of the Bill that we are discussing the motion. The

Opposition have been trying to do their job of scrutinising every aspect of the Bill and paying a certain amount of regard to each.
The Bill deals with the livelihood of men and women in many separate industries. It would be unfair for hon. Members to gloss over these parts of the Bill. We recognise the mentality of the Government. Their approach is that these are smaller industries and not the great industries with hundreds of thousands of employees, which means that these parts of the Bill can be skated over and that scrutiny can go by the board. The Opposition do not take that view. The men and women involved deserve a proper voice in the House and we have been doing everything in our power to make sure that their future and that of the transport industry do not go by default.
Proceedings on the Bill and the activities of the Government lead me to believe that the present structure is not the right one for dealing with the second part of the Bill and that we should take responsibility for road safety away from the Department of Transport and give it to the Department of Health and Social Security. The way that the Government have presented the Bill shows that they have the wrong attitude to transport safety. I say that only in passing, because I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) off the straight and narrow path of order.
I suggest that there may be a deeper significance in what has gone on. We may be discussing a guillotine motion, not because of the design of the Bill, but because in a smoke-filled room, either inside or outside the House, there was an agreement to push the two parts of the Bill together in order to achieve certain objectives. It may be that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary were pawns in a much bigger game and that certain powerful people who are opposed to certain aspects of transport safety engineered the timetable dispute and the scenario in which we find ourselves. I do not have a persecution complex, and I am not becoming paranoid, but it is worth dwelling on the possibility that there is something in that argument.
Because of the guillotine there will be insufficient scrutiny of important parts of the Bill that will deeply affect the people of this country. We all have our personal priorities—some will put one priority above another, while others will take a different view—but I believe that one of the most important priorities, if we can salvage anything from the rest of the Committee stage, is the question of safety for motor cyclists.
The motion will result in all of us being dissatisfied with the end product. I do not believe that it has anything to do with the actions of the Opposition. No Conservative Member has made a comparative analysis with other Bills. There has been no evidence of an exorbitant amount of time being spent on the Bill. Much longer has been spent in Committee on many other Bills and the discussion of many clauses of other measures has taken far longer than four or five hours.
There is no indication that the Government have an overburdened legislative timetable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said last year that there was so much activity in the Committee Corridor that it resembled the Chicago stockyards. That is not the situation in this Session. We are moving at a comparatively leisurely pace. There is not one iota of


justification for a guillotine at this stage—unless it is a wicked attempt by the Government to cut off debate on important parts of the Bill.
An actress once said that she found a film producer personally agreeable, but she hated his guts. I gathered that that was the message of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough when he constantly referred to me in his revealing speech.
We shall neglect vital areas of the Bill as a result of the guillotine. I appeal to the Secretary of State, the Under-secretary and any other Conservative Member of good will to reconsider not only the motion, but the fact that only one day will be devoted to the Report stage. That will be a travesty. The House's reputation stands or falls on the fact that there are some issues that are not party political and on which we do not take up preconceived stances and do our gladiatorial act.
The Government and the Opposition could work together and have an important and decisive effect on the way that those outside the House regard what we do. The motion demonstrates that at some stage a shabby deal was settled, and that will be deplored by all men and women of good sense.

Mr. Iain Mills: It is sad that we are debating a timetable motion, because the Bill is undoubtedly important.
At the start of my contribution, which will be short, I wish to point out that when I came to Parliament I decided that transport would be one of my interests. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary on having introduced, in less than two years, two complete Transport Bills and on initiating debates on heavy lorries and many other highly controversial matters. They are seen to be taking a great interest in transport and to be doing something about it, and I am sure that that is recognised in the country as well as in Parliament.
In our lengthy debates in Committee the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have gone beyond all reasonable limits to answer the many probing and searching inquiries of Labour Members. At times it must have been most frustrating for the Ministers, but they performed their task with aplomb. Indeed, the Opposition paid effusive compliments to one of the Ministers for his capable and nice nature and the kind way in which he had answered their queries. For them to harp on the Minister's actions can be seen only as extremely hypocritical. The Ministers have done a remarkably good job, as Labour Members would admit if there they were honest about it.
I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), because I know that he will lead for the Opposition on the road safety measures in the Bill. I am sure that he and hon. Members on both sides were eagerly anticipating those debates and would like to see more time for them. It must be frustrating for the hon. Gentleman to see the measures relating to British Rail and the British Transport Docks Board, though they are undoubtedly important, weighed b)' his right hon. and hon. Friends, in terms of time, against the thousands of lives that might be saved by the right measures to improve the safety of motor cycles, which we hope to include in later parts of the Bill.

Mr. Stott: It is true that I attach great importance to the road safety clauses, but I attach great importance also to the livelihoods of those employed by BR and the BTDB.

I agree with everthing that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said and the way that they have moved amendments to protect the livelihoods and negotiating rights of those employees. I do not believe that we have wasted the Committee's time in deploying important arguments, particularly as my right hon. and hon. Friends were talking about a different part of the Bill.

Mr. Mills: I always welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Westhoughton, when they are interventions. In the famous four hours-plus debate on the naming of Associated British Ports, the amendment that was finally accepted was the one standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and myself. I gave up the opportunity to make a lengthy contribution in Committee and confined my remarks to a short interjection on one specific matter because I wanted the Committee to make progress and complete the discussions on the subject. I was quite appalled therefore when the Opposition spent so much time on the clause and then voted on every consequential amendment regarding Associated British Ports.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but what happened was a little odd. Of course Oppositions must oppose, but we were amazed, after 18 sittings, having debated on one occasion 30 groups of amendments, covered six clauses and nearly five pages during the lengthy period leading up to the announcement of the guillotine, to find that on the Thursday afternoon, after the announcement, we covered two and a half clauses, one schedule and three pages in four and a half hours. They must have had a reason for doing that. Perhaps it concentrates the mind to know that the guillotine is on its way.
I feel sorry for the many capable, talented and good Opposition Members that it was the Opposition Front Bench that occupied a disproportionate amount of time. I sympathise with them for having been unable to exercise their rhetoric and wit as much as they would have wished.

Mr. Cowans: What the hon. Gentleman says confirms that we adopted a responsible attitude in seeking to deal with some of the essential matters which were, unfortunately, part of a controversial Bill, and which some of us felt should have been dealt with separately.

Mr. Mills: I am in favour of more and more Transport Bills. I look forward to them next year and the year after. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), I dream that every year I shall be seen in the same company, debating endlessly more and more clauses. It is something that both haunts and delights me, but I am not sure how to resolve my confusion and dichotomy.
It is tragic for the millions of motorists whose lives and safety are controlled and affected by part IV that less time will be given to these important provisions than we should have wished. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Inevitably, the two sides of the House will have different points of view, but had we spent less time on the first two parts, we could have spent longer on the subsequent parts.
My right hon. Friend assured me at Question Time that we should be able to debate each category of fixed penally in clause 19 and schedule 7, and in view of the many amendments that were tabled by both sides of the Committee, at the instigation of many important motoring


organisations, representiing nearly 15 million motorists, it must seem incredible to those organisations that the Bill has been given the time that it has and that the affairs, however important, of the British Rail subsidiaries and British Transport Docks Board are considered by the Opposition to have such earth-shattering importance that they take precedence over such important matters. Opposition Members cannot get away from parliamentary procedures and cannot fail to have understood that that was inevitable.

Mr. Cowans: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I extend an invitation to him. Will he join me in a joint approach to his right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to withdraw the road safety part of the Bill and make it into a separate measure so that adequate discussion can be given to the matter?

Mr. Mills: The wit and skill of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) entertained us only too frequently in Committee. I appreciate what he says, but we must get the debate moving, because next year other transport matters of pressing importance will need to be considered. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing together these slightly diverse but important matters. Therefore I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in such an approach.
I turn to the valid points that were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. It is important to consider in some detail the motor cycle provisions in the Bill. I am sure that we should all like to table amendments and new clauses to improve safety for motor cyclists. The Three Spires Motor Cycling Club in my constituency has several good ideas that I should like to explore, but because of the time that has been spent on the first parts of the Bill it is unlikely that we shall be able to consider them.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about times. The Bill has five parts. Even with the possible guillotine time—depending on what the Business Committee decides—sufficient time can be given to the provisions dealing with road safety. It is not as heavy-ended as the hon. Member suggests, though there will still not be enough time to deal with the important provisions relating to road safety.

Mr. Mills: I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) agrees with me that they are important provisions. I shall not say that the important clauses are the ones on the points system, drinking and driving, and motor cycles, because I know that there are other vitally important provisions. I know, for instance, that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will want to explore, in clause 29, many matters affecting vehicle excise duty and the relationship of lorry weights to roads and the effects of lorries and axle weights on the roads. That, too, is an important clause. I do not see how, therefore, in the time that is left to us we can resolve all these important matters.
Moreover, we need a full and searching debate on vehicle excise duty in preparation for whatever will be the fate of the heavy lorry in the future and because it will have a massive effect on haulage generally. I have some experience of the road haulage industry, and I must

therefore take some responsibility for the truckers and ensure that matters affecting their livelihoods are fully debated. However, we must not give undue weight to one section at the expense of others.
I conclude by referring to the need to debate the new clauses dealing with road humps, which my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and I tabled. They are significant. They have been considered by Governments over a considerable period. If drafting amendments are all that are required, I hope that we can attract both Government and Opposition support for what will be an excellent measure. It would be tragic if we were unable to debate road humps fully, because they could make a significant contribution to reducing speed in areas with a high incidence of accidents.
This is a diverse Bill. It has to be. If it will result in better safety for road users and more justice for motorists, I urge Opposition Members to feel that the guillotine motion is of benefit to them as well as to the Government.

6 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson: It seems to be traditional on these occasions for Opposition Members to denounce Government guillotine motions by comparing them with, say, the intervention of King Charles when he brought troopers to the House in an attempt to arrest five of its Members. However, I do not think that on this occasion the Opposition should go to that extent in condemning the Government's action, because the guillotine is a device that has been adopted by successive Governments to get through their business.
As Back Benchers, we ought to consider what our job is. It seems to me that, in addition to explaining our respective political stances and scrutinising Bills to discover exactly what they mean and what Governments intend, our real objective in this law factory which we are paid to attend is to produce good, clear, laws which can be worked by those who have to operate them, without having to resort to a group of fancy, highly paid lawyers who will go on to make fortunes out of any lack of clarity in the laws produced here. There is no doubt, for example, that the drink-drive laws are a disgrace to the House of Commons and all its procedures. They have been a source of great confusion, a great deal of trouble, and fortunes for the lawyers. If we improve them, our time here will have been well spent.
In Committee we have been considering a Bill which covers two different spheres—the denationalisation of certain parts of the present transport industry and road safety. The two are quite distinct, and it is the bringing of them together that has been the main source of the Government's problems. I suggest that both these aspects merit close attention. There seems to be too great an assumption on the part of those hon. Members who have spoken so far that it is only the road safety aspect that merits such close attention. However, the scrutiny of the denationalisation proposals so far shows what importance has to be attached to looking at these proposals.
For a start, the Government had no mandate from their election manifesto to enact these proposals or even to introduce them. Secondly, we have had no clear indication of what they intend, and we have used the opportunity provided by the earlier debates in Committee to find out a great deal about the structure, the shareholding and the future organisation of companies at present in the public sector which are being transferred to the private sector.
We have discovered, for example, that the Bill will allow British Rail to sell off not only what we all regard as subsidiaries, but major parts of its system such as the high-speed train, the advanced passenger train or even—a point that seems to have been taken up by the Minister—to hive off of the Southern region of British Rail, assuming that the Minister can find someone to buy it, which seems highly unlikely.
I took offence when the Leader of the House referred to part I of the Bill and described it as"a mere four clauses". I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those mere four clauses affect the livelihoods of 23,000 people who work in the British Rail subsidiaries, and public assets amounting to £300 million. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to take that view, of course, but my own view is that four clauses of that importance can hardly be described by the use of the word"mere". The very fact that that number of jobs and that scale of public assets are involved merit the degree of scrutiny that the Committee has given that part of the Bill.
I add as a passing thought that perhaps it was not all to the good that King Charles did not get at least one of the five Members. If he had succeeded in getting the first parliamentary Pym we would not have been left with the present one as Leader of the House and we might not have been considering this guillotine motion today.
We have been trying, and we shall continue to try, despite the guillotine, to protect the jobs of those who are being transferred out of the public sector into the private sector. We shall want especially to study the pensions provisions. The Secretary of State was so much in agreement with us about the complexity and difficulty of the pensions provisions that he acceded to our request to delay consideration of schedule 1 so that everyone would have more time to consider that complex issue. We have still to come to that. We have also to consider the carrying forward of various rights and privileges which people working in the British Rail subsidiaries enjoy at present and which they hope to continue to enjoy in the private sector.
We have also been trying to bring about a proper degree of consultation with all the staff involved both during the process of denationalisation and afterwards. We have failed to make any progress with the Ministers, but there should be no criticism of those of us who have attempted to bring this about.
Equally, we need to give attention to road safety, and I stress the word"equally". We need to look to the future and at what the Government are proposing in this guillotine. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the arguments that will be batted to and fro in this debate about who caused what sorts of delays, the Government are proposing only 13 more sittings of the Standing Committee and just one day for the Report stage.
We need to ask ourselves why the Government want the guillotine, and then we need to look at the proposal to have only one day on Report. Having done that, it may be that we shall discover the answer. The behaviour of the Government in not accepting the proposition agreed between the two Whips in the Committee can only mean that the Government never intended not to have a guillotine. The guillotine has nothing to do with their concern about delays in the Standing Committee. The reason for it is that they do not relish spending very long on the Floor of the House on Report because the Secretary

of State is embarrassed about what the House as a whole might do, not to remove provisions from the Bill, but to add clauses and thereby improve it.
As I understand it, the Secretary of State does not like the prospect of the idea circulating in golf club bars and other places where he wishes to be well thought of that he is the Secretary of State who was responsible for a Bill that introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts, and he probably does not want to go down in history in the eyes of his constituents as the man who was associated with the introduction of something approaching random breath tests.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to our having only one day on Report for this important measure. However, I put this basic question to him. He has done more than most in filibustering, so that we have taken 65 hours to consider five pages of the Bill. Did not the thought cross his mind when he was rambling on at a late hour in Committee that the inevitable result was likely to be only one hour to consider that sort of provision?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman refers to our proceedings in Committee he will see that I have not spoken at great length. It may be that my short speeches bore him so much that he thinks that they go on for a long time. But I have not spoken at great length; indeed, I have not made many contributions to the debates in Committee.
However, to respond to the hon. Gentleman's main question, I did not expect the Government to respond by saying that they proposed to allocate only one day for the Report stage. The Opposition always recognised that the Government might seek to curtail debate in Committee, but if they do that it seems logical that they should extend the Report stage. If the evidence of what has happened to date is anything to go by, generally we make such a mess of amendments introduced in Committee that they need to be put right on Report or further considerations need to be advanced. Anyone who argues in favour of curtailing debate in Committee must be in favour of having more than one day on Report.
It seems clear to me that it is this effort to reduce the possibility of some snags arising on Report and the Secretary of State, being embarrassed by the clearly expressed views of the House in the past on the wearing of seat belts that has led to this guillotine motion, rather than any substantial delays in Committee.
If the Bill comes out of Standing Committee in its present form, the odds are that we shall bring the House into disrepute. Yet again we shall produce road safety measures that will lead to considerable death and injury on the roads, and a fortune for the lawyers. That is what we have managed to produce with road safety measures so far. Instead of spending sufficient time on those road safety measures, either in Standing Committee or on Report, we shall produce the same shabby mess that we have produced before. The same lawyers who have been crawling over the present road safety legislation will do so again to yet more effect. We shall not obtain the clear resolution of those matters which the people have a right to expect.
Conservative Members on both Front and Back Benches can reasonably say that they would like to curtail the debate in Standing Committee, but to curtail the debate for the whole House on Report to one day is indefensible.


No doubt, in his inimitable way, the Secretary of State will shortly defend the indefensible, which is part of his task as a senior member of this indefensible Government.

Mr. James Hill: The debate is taking the pattern of most guillotine debates. There are some who want still more time, perhaps on both sides of the Chamber. There are others who have the responsibility of getting the Bill not only through the House, but through the other House, and for ensuring that it then becomes an Act of Parliament.
The British Rail element in part I and the British Transport Docks Board provision in part II are important. Any indecision, delay, filibustering and lack of attention by Committee Members to such important matters will tend to give a bad impression to those outside the House. They do not understand our procedures and do not realise that it is the duty of the Opposition to try to delay the Bill for as long as possible if they do not agree with certain parts of it. Consequently, the Opposition have a legitimate parliamentary reason for talking into the late hours of the night. Sometimes they may lose their train of thought and end up with what can only be called a form of gibberish. If Conservative Members were in Opposition, they would be doing precisely the same. Therefore, I do not blame the Opposition for wanting more time.
I was dismayed at the beginning of the Committee sittings because I felt that so much valuable time was being wasted on part I. There could have been an extension of debate if hon. Members had taken perhaps 10 minutes to make a point, but there were some extremely long speeches. In the minds of those who were making the speeches, they were worth while and to the point. However, those who, like myself, were trying to digest such speeches from the Opposition slowly but surely realised that time was being lost and that many parts of the Bill—we all have different priorities—would be left with little or no time for adequate debate. Everyone realises that my right hon. Friend is part of the system, as we all are. We must get Bills through during the parliamentary year. Both Houses of Parliament cannot operate in any other way.
We spent an excessive amount of time on part I. That important part of the Bill deals with the employment of many people. We were discussing a fundamental policy change. All those things were applicable.

Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Member took great pains to consult the working people in Southampton. In consequence, we treated him with much respect in his many contributions to the debate. His mind became clearer as he went along, as we kept intervening in his not-too-short speech. He expressed scepticism about the Government's position. We therefore thought for long periods that he would end up voting with the Opposition. We were optimistic about that. That is why we went on for rather longer than we otherwise would have done.

Mr. Hill: I must have been a more skilled debater than was apparent. At no time, except on one small issue, was there any likelihood that I would vote against my own Government. I congratulate them on certain parts, because

I have always thought that privatisation was the way to run the British Transport Docks Board, or, as it will be known, Associated British Ports.
When we decided in Committee on the new name, which necessitated many changes in the Bill, why was it necessary to have a vote on each one? That seems a little irresponsible. The Opposition may be able to give a perfectly logical parliamentary reason why it is necessary, throughout the passage of the Bill, to have a vote every time the three words"Associated British Ports" come up. If there is a reason, I accept it, but several hours will be wasted on that alone.

Mr. Prescott: We did not vote on every amendment about Associated British Ports. The hon. Member said that we spent too much time on part I. On part II he came close to not supporting the Government, yet that related to the ownership of the ports, which we had explained on part I. He did not realise that and voted against it then. Therefore, he contradicted himself on part II.

Mr. Hill: We all want clarification of that statement. I readily give it. I do not wish large shareholders to take over the British Transport Docks Board. Consequently, when that matter came up, I made my views clear. It falls within Conservative policy that the spread of shares throughout the ports industry is something that we should all desire—not just the Conservative party, but the Labour Party. The point at issue was whether it would be possible to restrict the major shareholders at the beginning when the holding company was given its instructions by my right hon. Friend.
We decided and accepted that that was impossible to legislate for. Consequently, I hope that there will be a generous share option scheme for everyone who works in the ports. That was the point at issue. I should not have voted against the Government, because they are on stream for privatisation. All Conservative Members agree with privatisation.
What makes me rather nervous is the time that has been wasted on silliness. We are all guilty of that at times. One evening I said that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) had come up from"down below". The hon. Member thought that I meant Desdemona's or the devil's cavern. I do not know what he thought I meant. We had a long series of interventions on whether I should have said"down below". I meant one of the bars in the basement, where no one would begrudge the hon. Member a drink. That was the type of dialogue that was going on while important matters were being discussed which dealt with thousands of jobs. We had to get that right in Committee.
Our Committee will get it right. Time has been wasted and we are now entering the period when we must think of getting the Bill through both Houses by the summer. Because of the indecision that might be created, it will be helpful if the shares, certainly in Associated British Ports, can be floated by October. The only way that that can be done is for the Bill to get through both Houses before then.
Because of our constituency problems and interests we would all like more time, but, as parliamentarians, we know that time is one of our rarest commodities. The guillotine motion is necessary in all the circumstances, and I support it.

Mr. Harry Cowans: For my sins, or otherwise, since I entered the House in 1976 I have served on the Committees on three Transport Bills—in 1978, 1979 and 1980. None of them was guillotined. I have had the dubious distinction of taking part in Committee debates both in Government and in Opposition, so I have heard what hon. Members opposite condemn as filibustering. Therefore, I do not join this debate as a complete amateur.
In 1978—the Secretary of State was not a right hon. Gentleman then; I congratulated him on his promotion shortly after—we had seven or eight all-night sittings, and they were justified. But that Bill was not guillotined, because it was a major piece of legislation. We sometimes become insular here. Many people outside are anxious that their views on the Bill should be expressed on their behalf. What is magical about 31 March or about having only a one-day debate on Report? If the Secretary of State believes that all the issues should be properly covered, it is in his interests to allow the maximum time. Early in May, or the second week in April, might have been just as acceptable.
We are in an unhappy situation. The speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) today showed what we have to put up with. He took 25 minutes to defend part IV of the Bill. I do not underrate part IV. Road safety is an important aspect and needs adequate time for debate, but I should find Conservative Members' views more credible if they had joined us on Second Reading in urging the Minister to make that part a separate Bill, which could then have been discussed on non-party lines.
That cannot be said of the other parts of the Bill. It is a pity that Conservative Members have not expressed so much concern about those provisions. It is an old story that time passes, quickly when one is interested in what is being discussed, but drags when one is not. The time that I have spent on the Bill has passed relatively quickly. Indeed, so quickly did we deal with this matter that I was unable to obtain a copy of the Official Report of our last sitting before coming into this debate. I had hoped to quote from it, but it is not available so I cannot.
Many Labour Members are concerned about part I, which deals with the livelihood of many people, since it relates to the powers of disposal of the British Railways Board. When there is uncertainty about so many jobs, the issues should be explored and occasionally exposed. The proposals for the new harbours company also involve the jobs of many thousands of people. They may not be important to Conservative Members, but they are important to us. We should explore these matters, especially for the benefit of those who are worried about their future and their conditions.
Part II, which deals with Associated British Ports and the holding company, is vital to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who made a good constituency speech in Committee. Will he reflect on the fact that other hon. Members have a constituency interest in part II, yet none of us sought to curtail his speech in the way that he seeks to curtail ours?
Our debates bore fruit in the shape of four amendments that were accepted by the Government. Would they have been forthcoming if we had not discussed the matter at length? The first of those amendments, which was very

important to people in the railway industry, was about all enactments; the second was the change of name to Associated British Ports; the third related to New Holland pier; and the fourth dealt with Windermere (Lakeside) pier. The acceptance of those amendments after hours of discussion proves our case.
I repeat the invitation that I have thrown out before. Even at this late stage, will Tory Members join me in petitioning the Secretary of State to frame a separate road safety Bill, so that we can give it adequate time and have a non-political debate?

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Both my hon. Friend and I have a vested interest in the subject of employment in transport. Does he agree that every hon. Member should be concerned about road safety and the effect of these provisions on people's lives? It is because we are concerned about saving life that we feel that there should be a separate Bill. We could then consider all these aspects so as to protect our constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech in an intervention.

Mr. Cowans: I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Road safety is important. Lives are involved. It is right to have a proper debate. Let us not lose perspective. Lives might not be affected by parts I and II, but jobs and conditions of service are, and lives could be, affected. It is important that time is given, and seen to be given, to discuss jobs and conditions as it is to discuss road safety. The only people who deny that are the Government, who want to short-circuit our debates.
The Government could at least have discussed how much time we should spend on each part of the Bill, but they gave us no option. It is no good Government Back Benchers now complaining that their debates will be curtailed. They should have made representations to the Secretary of State. They should have asked him to ration the time, to ensure that part IV receives adequate discussion. Government Members were encouraged to join our debates. They have even been successful with their amendments. How can the guillotine be justified when we had two long debates on Government Back-Bench amendments which were accepted? That could have happened at 10.31 am.
I urge the Government to return to reality and common sense. They should convince people outside that they mean what they say and that adequate time will be given to all parts of the Bill, not just the parts that favour them.

Mr. Albert Booth: We are discussing a drastic guillotine motion on a Bill that embraces a wide range of subjects. It embraces the sale of British Rail subsidiaries and the transfer of ownership of a large number of British ports now held by the British Transport Docks Board. It provides a new basis for totting up offences and the disqualification of drivers, new drinking and driving laws, motor cycle licensing law, road humps provisions, vehicle licensing and taxi licensing. The guillotine will bear on a large number of subjects.
We cannot agree about the relative importance of some of the subjects. Some hon. Members claim that some subjects are more important than others. However, members of the Committee will agree that some debates will be seriously curtailed. The controversy over some


issues is not party political. It affects issues that cross parties and involve people throughout the country. We are discussing issues that were not mentioned in the Conservative Party manifesto and which were not laid before the House in a White Paper. The Bill was published just before Christmas, and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends consulted a number of bodies during the Christmas Recess. We were made well aware of the reservations about the Bill.
Since Second Reading it has been clear that the Bill contains a large number of controversial provisions. I put it to the House on Second Reading that it was worth considering separating the road safety provisions from the rest of the Bill and putting them in a second Bill. It could have been considered in a way that would have allowed us to be more free than is possible when we are discussing so many party political controversies. I believe that such a step would be welcome by hon. Members on both sides. I do not say that in a party political spirit.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that however long the Government had given our Committee to discuss the Bill we should still have dragged on at the same pace? By introducing a guillotine the Government permit these matters to be discussed and for us all to take part in a way that was not possible before because of the slowness with which hon. Members proceeded.

Mr. Booth: I do not agree. I shall explain why later.
The guillotine is unnecessary and unreasonable. Bearing in mind the party political controversy in the first two parts of the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have shown remarkable restraint in not tabling any wrecking amendments. All our amendments seek to improve the Bill. We accept that the Bill has had a Second Reading and therefore that it is our duty in Committee to attempt to improve the Bill as an instrument of legislation and transport policy.
Several Opposition amendments have been accepted by the Government, many after they were pressed at great length. Any impartial lawyer would agree that the amendments have improved the Bill. We take no delight in the fact that it took so long to convince the Government that the amendments were necessary. It took us four and half hours to persuade the Government to accept an amendment to improve the relevance of the Bill to their objectives.
Members of the Committee will agree that we did not delay on procedural motions. We went through the sittings motions quickly. I contrast that with my experience as a Government Back Bencher in 1966 during the proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill. I had the pleasure of listening to Conservative Members spend the whole of the first two sittings debating the sittings motion. They were entitled to do that. I chose to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to waste any time in that way. We wanted to get on with discussing the issues. In three weeks we moved to four sittings a week.
The Opposition have tried as reasonably as they can to facilitate proper consideration of the Bill. There are ways in which the Opposition can do that, but it is impossible for them to do so in Committee unless they have the co-operation of the Government. It could be argued that the Government have a duty to take some inititiative in the

matter. We lost one day in Committee because the Government debated the Armitage report on the Floor of the House on a Committee sitting day, at less than 24 hours notice. That did nothing to help the progress of the Bill.
Amendments proposed in Committee cannot be debated properly to a rigid timetable unless there is an agreement between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition do not have the same facilities as the Government for consultation about amendments. It takes a degree of understanding about timetabling for the matter to be dealt with properly. I say to Conservative Members who spoke about progress in terms of how many pages were dealt with in so many days that the process in which both they and we were involved upstairs was not the same as making sausages or operating a press tool in a factory, where so many items can be stamped out in an hour.
It cannot be measured in that way. We cannot simply count the number of words and say that we have dealt with so many words today and will deal with so many more tomorrow. We must read the words and understand their meaning. We must look at the merits involved in the words. Many of the words in the Bill are unique. Some of the Government amendments were unique in their phraseology. But that did not stop Conservative Members from objecting to our amendments which contained identical words. I agree that the wording was unique, but they dealt with exacting requirements of a complex industry and tried to have regard to the British judical process. We cannot achieve that by saying that we will deal with 20 or 30 amendments a day or four amendments an hour. Each must be judged on its merits.
I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate he will at least acknowledge that the time taken on amendments varied greatly. We took longer on some than on others. We moved some quickly and some at length. We were entitled to do so, and we make no apology for that. It is the proper way to deal with this form of legislation.

Mr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman says that at no time did he delay progress in Committee. Why was it necessary to vote each time on the question of Associated British Ports when there had been a long debate on the matter? It was passed by the Committee. All the remaining 100 amendments will take five or 10 minutes apiece if the Opposition call for a Division on each one.

Mr. Booth: It is not for me to delve into the merits of arguments in Committee when discussing a guillotine motion. However, I shall try to explain briefly to the hon. Gentleman what he should already know. Once the debate had taken place and it had been decided in favour of the title Associated British Ports, we refrained from debating the matter further. We proceeded to a vote immediately with no further discussion. We happen to believe that the name of the organisation is of considerable commercial importance. Had a private organisation been able to adopt the name"British Ports" it would have gained a considerable commercial advantage. We are opposed to the change of name from the British Transport Docks Board. We excercised our right to vote accordingly.
My point is that the amount of time spent on any one amendment is only a rough guide to Committee progress. However, for the purpose of the argument I shall take the time spent on amendments as a rough guide. We made 108 decisions in Committee. By decisions I mean votes on


amendments or clause stand part. I do not include amendments that the Chairman allowed us to debate with other amendments. Therefore, we dealt with about six decisions per sitting. At some sittings we dealt with more, and at some with fewer. Conservative Members may laugh at that, but let them cast back their memories to long before there was any question of a guillotine, to Thursday 19 February. During that morning sitting we dealt with two Government amendments, five Oppositions amendments and two clauses stand part. Was that reasonable progress?
I am glad to see the Leader of the House in his place. He questioned whether reasonable progress had been made. Does he consider it reasonable progress for a Committee, in a two-and-a-half-hour morning sitting, to deal with live Opposition amendments, two Government amendments and two clauses stand part? If so, will he say whether there was any suggestion before that date that the Bill would be subjected to a guillotine? I suggest that that was reasonable progress. There was no suggestion of a guillotine at that time, so it could not have influenced our progress.
We were ready at all times to agree on a reasonable basis for progress. When we assess the progress of the Bill we are concerned not only with the number of pages dealt with, but with the powers that the Ministers are acquiring—very sweeping powers in some cases—in the first few pages of the Bill. We are concerned also with the rights of citizens, which are being taken away by this measure. We are concerned with the rights of working men to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment under this legislation and with their rights to be represented in the industries in which they work. That was affected by amendments that we discussed in Committee.
We make no apology for having taken longer on some issues than others. We appreciate that the Government wish to set a timetable for the Bill. We understand that because some of us have been in Government as well as in Opposition. That is why, when the Government made a proposition to us a fortnight ago about the time in which we might complete the second part of the Bill, we responded with a counter proposition which would have completed it only one day later than had been suggested by the Government. That offer was rejected in the afternoon of the day on which it was made. The offer was made in written exchanges between the Whips.
By refusing to accept a perfectly reasonable proposition, which would have cost the Government only one day more than they had estimated, they prevented us from making progress. Had they accepted the proposition we would have completed 14 clauses of the Bill by now. That was the offer that we held out to them.
In retrospect, I realise that in order to complete those 14 clauses we would have had to sit much longer into the night and the Government would have had to delay closing the Committee proceedings beyond 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. If they had accepted our proposition, we would have been prepared to do that.
Some Government Back Benchers have complained about the length of Opposition speeches. Some of them behaved like Trappist monks in Committee, and therefore we understand their complaint. But some who did not behave like Trappist monks in Committee have joined in the complaints—for example, the hon. Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Southampton. Test (Mr. Hill). I ask them to look at the records and compare their

contributions with those of some of my hon. Friends, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen).
Time was not taken solely by Labour Members. I make no complaint about the speeches of the hon. Member for Faversham. He came to life in Committee when he realised that dockers in his constituency were affectd by the Bill. My only complaint is that his voting was not commensurate with the tenor of his speeches. However, his speeches were most welcome.
The timetable for the consideration of the Bill on Report is solely the Government's responsibility. The Opposition have not been consulted. The Government propose that we should have only one day on Report for a Bill of enormous complexity that contains so many issues. They do not propose even a whole day. We are expected to complete 35 clauses and 11 schedules in only nine and a half hours. We shall have to average five clauses an hour, and that does not take account of voting time. The proposal is ridiculous, and it indicates that the Government have no intention of allowing a proper debate on Report.
I was delighted to read the editorial in Saturday's Daily Express. It is rare for me to be delighted with its editorial. It referred to Ernie Bevin and said:
To everybody he was Ernie. Starting adult life as an unskilled working man, he forged the mighty Transport and General Workers Union and later became a spokesman of world renown. He was the embodiment of the decency and strength of the Labour movement in the era when Labour was truly a national party. He believed in representing the dignity of Labour.
The editorial went on to compare Labour leaders of today unfavourably with Ernie Bevin.
As it is the centenary of the birth of Ernie Bevin, I remind Conservative Members of one thing that they may have forgotten about Ernie. Ernie rose on 3 February 1920 at the Shaw inquiry to deploy a case about dockers and their working conditions. He spoke for 11 hours, over three days of the inquiry, in deploying his case. When he resumed his seat he was not condemned. He was not told that the inquiry would have to be guillotined. He was congratulated immediately by the judge who headed the inquiry. I am not promising my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr, Prescott) that 100 years from his birth there will be a glowing editorial about him in the Daily Express.
It is worth realising that speeches can be judged by features other than their length. There are some long speeches that deal with great and important topics. The issue of whether working men should be represented on the board of the holding company that controls British ports is a great topic.
The motion demonstrates that the Government have no intention of allowing proper debate on the Bill. Full parliamentary scrutiny would leave the Government's proposals discredited throughout the country. The Government are forcing the Bill through for narrow party political ends in a way that is a travesty of parliamentary democracy. I call upon the House to oppose the motion.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I would have found the speech of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), especially the last part of it, a great deal easier to take if I were not aware of the filibustering tactics of the Opposition Front Bench in Committee over the past few weeks. Until Thursday afternoon these tactics had allowed the


Government only five pages of a 76-page Bill after almost 60 hours of debate. These tactics have produced two speeches from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of two and a half hours each. That will be the recollection of any member of the Committee and it can be checked easily by anyone.
When the right hon. Gentleman complains of the monstrosity of the guillotine procedure and the rights of citizens, I remind him of what happened on 20 July 1976 when the Labour Government introduced five guillotines on one day. The right hon. Gentleman supported one of those motions passionately. I remind him of the occasion because he was guillotining the Dock Work Regulation Bill, one of the most deeply controversial Bills to appear before Parliament in the past 20 years.

Mr. Booth: That guillotine motion followed a completely unfettered consideration in Committee.

Mr. Fowler: I shall quote what the right hon. Gentleman said in proposing the guillotine motion in 1976. I accept that there are differences, and I shall refer to them. He said:
In the last analysis the Government must retain the right to use whatever majority they can command to obtain their legislation."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1665.]
There are two differences. The first is that the Bill that we are now considering in Committee had a Second Reading majority of 77. Most of the minority parties apart from the Labour Party voted with the Government. The Dock Work Regulation Bill scraped through with a majority of only seven. All the Opposition parties voted against it and there was a deep division inside the Labour Party. The second difference is that in 1976 the then Government did not allow a three-hour debate on the guillotine motion. They guillotined two Bills with one motion—the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Health Services Bill, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) being responsible for the latter measure.

Mr. Ennals: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not recall the circumstances. The then Labour Government introduced the motion on the Health Services Bill to give more time to the House because the then Conservative Opposition were denying us a sittings motion that was designed to give more time for debate and not to curtail it.

Mr. Fowler: We have been in the House long enough to consider that argument with a certain amount of cynicism. No one challenges the right hon. Gentleman's right to defeat the Bill, but we challenge his right to lecture the House on parliamentary ethics.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness is only a supporting player in the story. The Opposition's tactics were set out in the debate on the Queen's Speech by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the Opposition would fight the Bill all the way. That was his clearly stated policy. Last Thursday the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) referred to the timetable motion as being"quite intolerable" and advised us to read his speeches about timetable motions over the weekend. He said that if we did we would return to this place much wiser men.
In my wish ever to be helpful, I read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches. I agree that they repay study. They

reveal him as the then Leader of the House pushing through five guillotine motions on one day. They also reveal that he supported guillotine motions from not only the Front Bench but the Back Benches. His most notable and passionate speech from the Back Benches in favour of a guillotine motion was on the Transport Bill of 1968.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) dwelt on 1967 and 1968. He forgot to mention that the Transport Bill of 1968 was guillotined. He was then the Chief Whip. The enormous measure of 1968 is four times larger than the Bill now before us.

Mr. John Silkin: The 1968 Bill had 195 hours of debate in Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Leader of the House, who said during the timetable motion on the Scotland Bill in 1978 that each guillotine motion must be judged on its merits and that one must never quote precedents from the past?

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that guillotine motions should be judged on their merits. We shall ask the House to decide this motion on its merits. The complaint of the Minister of Transport at the time—Mrs. Castle—and the right hon. Member for Deptford, who was then Government Chief Whip, was that progress on the 1968 Bill had deteriorated from 1·9 hours per clause to 2·8 hours. The average number of hours spent on each clause in this Bill is just under eight hours, with 19½ hours spent on clause 1 and 20½ on clause 5. Compared with that, the progress on the 1968 Bill was like that of an express train.

Mr. Silkin: I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was then leading for the Opposition and it was impossible to reach agreement with him. That is not the case on this Bill.

Mr. Fowler: There is a precise and exact analogy. However, I must get on.
At that stage the Leader of the Opposition was a Back Bencher. His reasons for supporting the guillotine made parliamentary common sense. He stated:
Everybody knows how our procedures are operated in this House. Everybody watches the timetable … As we get past a certain date, it can be calculated by clever Chief Whips—and the Chief Whip of the Tory Party is clever"—
some things never change—
that if they turn on the heat, then they cannot merely disrupt this Bill, but disrupt the rest of the timetable."—[Official Report, 14 March 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1708.]
His advice was that at that stage it would be foolish for anyone to start anything approaching a filibuster. It is always a great pleasure to read the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, particularly those that he made as a Back Bencher. With respect, it would have been far better had he given that excellent advice to his Front Bench team on this Bill.
By any standards, the Opposition, and particularly their Front Bench team, have filibustered the Bill. One problem is that they have three official spokesmen. There are more Shadow Ministers than Ministers. Also, the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), feels no constraint about intervening.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: That confirms my point.

Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot. I now have only six minutes left.

Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister will not give way in the time left to him. He must be allowed to continue.

Mr. Fowler: I apologise, but I now have only five minutes left.
On the amendments to change the name"British Ports" to"Associated British Ports", the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke for one hour and 40 minutes, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness for 30 minutes and the Opposition Whip for 25 minutes. On another occasion the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made a speech lasting two hours and 40 minutes. It started on the morning of Thursday 26 February and ended at about 9 pm in the evening. He was interrupted 15 times by his own Whip. The evidence of the Opposition Front Bench tactics is in Hansard for everyone to see.

Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: I believe that many Opposition Members find the talk, talk and talk again tactics as bewildering as we do. It is one of the few examples of an Opposition Front Bench team setting out to demoralise the Government and succeeding only in demoralising its own side.
The Bill is important in two respects. It introduces private capital into two major nationalised industries—the subsidiary companies of British Rail and the British Transport Docks Board. The need in British Rail is urgent. Over the past quarter of a century its subsidiaries, such as the hotel business, have been starved of investment. Neither the unions nor the board dispute that. The Government are tackling the problems. As the chairman of British Rail said, to take no action is not an option. After careful discussion with British Rail, we have reached agreement on how private capital can be introduced. The Government are taking action so that the businesses can develop with the opportunities that the private sector will give them. That is good for the businesses, for those working in them and for the public.
The other major theme of the Bill is road safety. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that the Bill should go further. However, the Government are taking the first major action in this field for many years. Unlike the Labour Government, we are not merely talking. We are taking action on two of the gravest road safety problems—motor cycle safety and drink-driving. We are reforming the motoring offences system. Even those who believe that we should go further do not oppose the steps that we are taking. If the Opposition's tactics succeed, those advances will be at risk.
The Government are taking action in two areas where problems have been ignored for far too long—industrial development and jobs, and road safety. The Bill is overwhelmingly in the public interest. I call upon the House to vote for the motion.

Mr. Cowans: Here is a practical example of the Government asking for the guillotine. I serve on the Committee. Here is even the Secretary of State—

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that in any case the time is up. I am now told not and that we have one more minute.

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) has already caught your predecessor's eye.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) has already spoken.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful for the one minute to refute the charge that has been laid at my door—that I was responsible for taking up time and filibustering. It was only when the Government did not agree with a proposal, having agreed in the morning—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,Ms.. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 235.

Division No. 97]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. R'c'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Alison, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Hon A. Plym'th, S'n)


Ancrarn, Michael
Clark, Sir W.CroydonS)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon H.S'thorne)
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert PrestonN)
Cope,John


Baker, Kenneth St.M'bone)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas N Dorset)
Corrie, John


Banks, Robert
Costain, Sir Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Critchley, Julian


Bell, Sir Ronald
Crouch, David


Bendall, Vivian
Dean, Paul North Somerset)


Benyon, Thomas A 'don)
Dickens, Geoff rey


Benyon, W.Buckingham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor,Sir Nicholas
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Edwards, Rt Hon N. P'broke)


Bottomley, Peter W'wichW)
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Emery, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brinton, Tim
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brittan, Leon
Farr, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fell, Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brotherton, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brown, Michael Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Browne,John Winchester)
Fletcher, A. Ed'nb'ghN)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter South Angus)


Butler, Hon Adam
Fry, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gardiner, George Reigate)


Carlisle,John Luton West)
Gardner, Edward SFylde)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marten,NeiI (Banbury)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, DrBrian


Gower, SirRaymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)
Mayhew, Patrick


Gray, Hamish
Mellor, David


Greenway, Harry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grieve, Percy
Mills, lain(Meriden)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'thN)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, HonA.
Moore, John


Hamilton, Michael(Sallisbury)
Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)


Hampson, DrKeith
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Hastings, Stephen
Myles, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Paul
Needham, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Normanton, Tom


Hicks, Robert
Nott, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Rt Hon MrsS.


Hogg, Hon Doug las(Gr'th'm)
Osborn, John


Holland,Philip(Carlon)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, John(Oxford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Sirlan


Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick
Peyton, Rt Hon John


JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kaberry, SirDonald
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kershaw, Anthony
Proctor, K.Harvey


Kilfedder, James A.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kimball, Marcus
Raison,Timothy


Kitson, SirTimothy
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, MrsJill
Rees, Peter (Doverand Deal)


Knox, David
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rhodes, James, Robert


Lang, Ian
RhysWilliams, SirBrandon


Langford-Holt.SirJohn
Ridley, HonNicholas


Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Lawrence, Ivan
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lennox-Boyd, HonMark
Roberts, Wyn (Con way)


Lester Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh


Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Michael(Scanborough)


MacGregor, John
Shelton, William(Streatham)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macmillan, Rt HonM.
Shepherd, Richard


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Smith, Dudley


Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Speller, Tony


MarshalI Michael(Arundel)
Spence, John



Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wakeham, John


Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sproat, lain
Walker, B. (Perth)


Squire, Robin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Stainton,Keith
Wall, Patrick


Stanbrook, lvor
Waller, Gary


Stanley, John
Walters, Dennis


Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)
Watson, John


Stokes, John
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen


Tapsell, Peter
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Robert (CroydonNW)
Whitelaw, RtHon William


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Raymond


Tebbit, Norman
Wickenden, Keith


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Thompson, Donald
Winterton, Nicholas


Townend, John(Bridlinton)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, CyrilD,('B'hearth)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trippier,David



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Vaughan, DrGerard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Waddington, David



NOES


Abse, Leo
Dixon, Donald


Adams, Allen
Dobson, Frank


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, Jack


Alton, David
Douglas, Dick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dubs, Alfred


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex


Beith, A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Bennett, Andrew(St'Kp'tN)
Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt HonA.(M'b'ro)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, John (Newton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Field, Frank


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Fitt, Gerard


Brown, Ron(E'burgh,Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'yS)
Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&amp;P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell,Ian
Ford, Ben


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Forrester, John


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, John(Norwich S)


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Clark, DrDavid (SShields)
George, Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)
Ginsburg, David


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Graham, Ted


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cook, Robin F.
Grimond, RtHon J.


Cowans, Harry
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Cox,T.(W'dsw'th,Toot'g)
Hamilton, W.W.(C'tralFife)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Crowther, J.S.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cryer, Bob
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Haynes, Frank


Cunningham,G.(lslingtonS)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Davidson, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hogg, N.(EDunb'fnshire)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
HomeRobertson, John


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Homewood, William


Davis, T. (B'ham,Stechf'd)
Hooley, Frank


Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Mark(Durham)






Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Janner, Hon Greville
Richardson, Jo


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts,Albert (Normanton)


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roper, John


Kerr, Russell
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Leighton, Ronald
Sandelson, Neville


Lestor, MissJoan
Sever, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lofthouse, Geoff rey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McCusker, H.
Silverman, Julius


McDonald, DrOonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (NLanark)


McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


McNally, Thomas
Stallard, A. W.


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


McTaggart, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (WIsles)


McWilliam, John
Stoddart, David


Magee, Bryan
Stott, Roger


Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marshall,Jim (LeicesterS)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tbomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tilley, John


Mikardo, lan
Tinn, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wainwright, E. (DearneV)


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton ltchen)
Wainwright, R. (ColneV)


Molyneaux, James
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Morton, George
Welsh, Michael


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
White, Frank R.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whitlock, William


Ogden, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


O'Halloran, Michael
Williams,Sir T.(W'ton)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Palmer, Arthur
Winnick, David


Park, George
Woodall, Alec


Parker, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, lan


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Penhaligon, David



Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (SDown)
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Prescott, John
Mr. Allen McKay.


Race, Reg

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 31 March 1981.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee Reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to vary the order in which the Bill is, by virtue of the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 22 January, to be considered by the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may vary that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5.On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be; considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted


business) shall apply to the private business for a period or three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill of, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing toa conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill, which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next Sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
'the Bill' means the Transport Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Committee;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
This draft order provides for the appropriation of both the 1980–81 Spring Supplementary Estimates and the sums required on account for 1981–82 by the Northern Ireland Departments. These Spring Supplementary Estimates represent for the most part relatively small adjustments to the spending plans of Northern Ireland Departments for this financial year. The House will recall that the major increase in the 1980–81 Main Estimates was effected through the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, covered by the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was debated and approved by the House in December last year.
Detailed information on this draft order is to be found in the Estimates volume and the Statement of Sums Required on Account, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office, and in the explanatory memorandum which I have circulated to right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, Opposition spokesmen on Northern Ireland affairs, and others who took part in the last Appropriation order debate. These publications are broadly self-explanatory, but there are, nonetheless, a number of important items in the present draft order to which I should like to draw the special attention of the House.
First, I should like to mention some of the principal features of the supplementary provision that is being sought. Under the heading of
Functioning of the Labour Market"—
that is, Class II Vote 4—hon. Members will see that additional provision of £7·7 million is being sought for the temporaiy short-time working compensation scheme. Expenditure on this scheme was originally estimated at £3·3 million, but due to the continuing difficulties experienced by Northern Ireland industry as a result of the recession demand for grant assistance under the terms of this scheme has risen considerably and it is now estimated that the scheme will cost some £11 million in 1980–81.
Here I should mention that the decreases shown under Class II Vote 4 in the Spring Supplementary Estimates volume largely reflect earlier reallocations which it was not possible to show in full in the Autumn Supplementary Estimates because of the Estimates conventions, rather than fresh reductions. The balance represents some internal reallocations within the Department of Manpower Services programme to meet changed circumstances.
Under Class VII, Vote 1,"Protective Services", Members will see that £100,000 is being sought for additional costs arising from the firemen's pay dispute. The House will recall that it was necessary, because of the possibility of industrial action by firemen last November, to make emergency arrangements under which the Armed Forces would provide a skeleton fire service using the Green Goddess appliances which are held for Civil Defence purposes. As a result, the 30 appliances held in Northern Ireland were put in a serviceable condition and deployed to the Army. The Supplementary Estimate is required to meet the costs involved.
On those Votes for which the Department of Education is responsible, token supplementary provision is sought to cover the additional requirements for the pay of teachers in schools and in institutions of further education. A reassessment of these costs shows an additional requirement of £1·6 million in Class VIII, Vote 1,"Schools", although no actual increase is necessary in the total voted provisions because of reductions in provision for capital grants to voluntary schools.
Hon. Members will remember that these reductions were detailed when the Autumn Supplementary Estimates were presented with the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, but again under the conventions it has not been possible until now to incorporate them in an Estimate. My noble Friend who is responsible for education in the Province considered it particularly important to retain the number of full-time teachers in the current academic year and the supplementary provision sought is necessary to meet the increased cost of the original allocation of teachers.
As hon. Members will, however, be aware, some marginal savings are being sought through a revision of the rules governing the appointment of substitute teachers, and these are currently the subject of detailed discussions with the teachers' unions. The revised assessment of the cost of teachers' salaries in institutions of further education, shown in Class VIII, Vote 2,"Higher and Further Education", is for £0·3 million. In this Vote offsetting savings arise on student support, on which the uptake of awards has been less than expected.
Turning to provision for health services, hon. Members will see that supplementary provision of some £9·2 million is sought under Class IX Vote 2,
Family Practitioner and Other Services".
These services are, of course, demand-determined and not subject to cash limits. The greater part of the additional provision sought relates to the payment of fees to medical and dental practitioners and to pharmacists. The increased expenditure on those services is partly offset by a reduction of £150,000 in the planned expenditure on welfare foods, for which demand has proved lower than originally expected.
In the social security sector, the draft order incorporates. provision for additional expenditure arising from an increase in the number of unemployed. An additional £5 million is sought in respect of supplementary benefits under Class X Vote 2,"Non-Contributory Benefits", while the additional £0·5 million included under Class X Vote 4,"Administration", reflects higher administrative and staffing costs.
I turn now to the other element in the draft order, namely, sums required on account for 1981–82. These amount in total to £944,360,200, and it is necessary to have these sums made available to Northern Ireland Departments by the beginning of the incoming financial year to enable services to continue until the balance of the 1981–82 Main Estimates are debated and approved along with the next Appropriation order, probably in early July. The sums required on account for 1981–82 are calculated on a standard formula of 45 per cent. of the total provision for the previous financial year, except in a few instances where it is known that expenditure plans will differ significantly from this pattern. They do not, therefore, indicate the total provision that will be sought for 1981–82.
As hon. Members will know, the Main Estimates will provide the detail of the spending plans for Northern Ireland Departments for 1981–82.
I believe that I have referred to the most important features of the draft order, but I know that right hon. and hon. Members may well wish to raise other points. I am obliged to those hon. Members who have given me and my colleagues advance notice of the matters that particularly concern them. I and my colleagues who are present will try to answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate. Those questions which, through lack of time, remain unanswered will, as usual, be dealt with in correspondence later.
I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Looking at the Treasury Bench, I think that the altercation with the Civil Service has at least done something. It has kept all the Ministers with us today, even if it has not allowed some of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland to be present. I do not know whether that is the reason for the empty Benches opposite, but other people have made an effort to be here.
It is sad and ironic that we should be debating the allocation of a mere morsel of funds to Northern Ireland at the time when unemployment and social distress have reached an all-time high in the Province. The explanatory memorandum, for which we thank the Minister, shows that the paltry additional expenditure is caused chiefly by the costs of unemployment in Northern Ireland—in other words, the costs of the problem created by a Tory Government.
The Opposition welcome any additional funds made available for public expenditure in the Province. This sum is so minuscule when compared with the overriding problem of low living standards, high levels of unfit housing and, above all, unparalleled levels of unemployment, that it will make noticeably little impact on the daily lives of the citizens. At the last count, just short of 100,000 were without a job. That figure is probably higher than that when one takes into account the unregistered unemployed and others.
The official figure of 17·3 per cent. means that Northern Ireland has the dubious distinction of having the highest regional rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom. In my time as a Minister in the Province I was told that to translate Northern Ireland figures into United Kingdom terms one would have to use a multiplier of 40. I admit that I used that formula when I wanted to use it and discarded it when I did not. But if we were to translate that figure into the rest of the United Kingdom on the multiplier always used in financial circles, the resulting figure of 17·3 per cent. would mean 4 million unemployed in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should visualise what would happen in our constituencies with an unemployment rate of 17·3 per cent.
After the meetings of the weekend, I do not know whether we have stumbled on to the Prime Minister's secret of what is an unacceptable level of unemployment before she acts or reacts. I wonder whether 4 million is the going rate for the rest of the United Kingdom.
We should consider the gravity of the situation all round. In certain towns—I see that the hon. Members

representing those areas are present—the problem is much worse. Strabane, Cookstown and Dungannon, for example, have unemployment rates in excess of 30 per cent. We should not complain of regional policy and the cost of jobs when there are such terrible figures in Northern Ireland. One should consider the whole balance sheet when cribbing at what is happening in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that if the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were here and there was an unemployment rate of 35 per cent. in his constituency he would not be so critical of some of the things that happen in Northern Ireland.
It is against such a backcloth that we are debating the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order. Before I turn to the detail of its specific inadequacies it is relevant and necessary to say a few words about the political climate within which the debate is being held.
When the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order was before the House last December, I attempted to raise the matter of the Anglo-Irish summit talks which had been initiated at that time. Three months later the House is still none the wiser about the nature and direction of those talks. Despite the Prime Minister's speech in Belfast last Thursday, the matter is still shrouded in a veil of secrecy. Today's debate is the first on Northern Ireland since the Prime Minister's visit to Northern Ireland to defuse the fears caused by the rantings of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I am sorry that he is not in his place. I expected him to be here today. I am sorry that I have probably not done the right thing by offering him a note of courtesy.
I trust that in future the Prime Minister will accept, if not from the Opposition, then from her colleagues, the advice offered to her about Northern Ireland. If she had heeded our words and come clean on the Dublin summit talks, the clawback operation last Thursday would not have been necessary.
If the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State requires advice on Northern Ireland—sometimes I think that they are clearly in need of it—they need look no further than the Opposition Benches and take the examples of the events in 1977. Our experience then showed that one sure way of demolishing the ravings of the hon. Member for Antrim, North was to give some hope to the people of Northern Ireland. That is what we gave them in 1977—jobs, improved housing and health facilities. We were seen to be doing something for the people, which is a lot more than I can say for the present Administration.
The Prime Minister will never silence the undercurrent of fear by churning out the same ambiguous phrases as she did in her latest speech. The people of Northern Ireland want jobs and economic security. The order demonstrates the Government's total inability and lack of determination to meet that desire. I could offer more advice, to the effect that one of the Department's Ministers must go to the Department of Commerce to find, on a dusty shelf, a copy of the Quigley report. My advice would be for him to read it and send it to the Prime Minister. The Quigley report contains the thoughts about how Northern Ireland should proceed. Some of the comments made by the Prime Minister in her speech on the economy can be said to be flying in the face of the Quigley report.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Member has raised the issue of the discussions with


Dublin. So that the House can be quite clear, does he believe that the Prime Minister is lying in her teeth when she says that the Union is not at risk as a consequence of the discussions, or does he believe the Prime Minister's assurance that the Union is not at risk?

Mr. Concannon: I do not believe in any such thing. What I have already said about the hon. Member for Antrim, North should be sufficient answer. My position is the same as it has been from the start, that if the Prime Minister had accepted the advice—not of the Opposition, but of many other people—and made a statement, the cavortings and rantings of the hon. Member for Antrim, North would not have been allowed to continue and fester as they have.
There are some hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies who have a perfect right to speak out against unemployment; some, because they have a slightly different philosophy, might do so with their tongues in their cheeks. But there are some hon. Members—we all know them—who have no right to question and argue about unemployment rates in Northern Ireland. The problems of selling Northern Ireland are very difficult and they are not helped by the antics of a few people in the House and elsewhere. Some of the disgraceful scenes that occurred this weekend between the lord mayors of Belfast and Dublin will not help us to solve the problems of the economic structure of the Province.
I turn to the main content of the order. Without hesitation I can say that this Budget is necessitated by the unemployment that pervades Northern Ireland. It is not a Budget for the unemployed—for if they are looking to the order for hope of industrial regeneration and secure jobs they will look long and hard in vain. Instead, we have an order that is clear evidence of the failure of the Government s economic experiment in Northern Ireland. In all, just over 60 per cent. of the additional funds being sought by the Government will go directly to pay for the increased costs of unemployment and short-time working which was not predicted last summer. Under Class II, Vote 4, the single most expensive item is the funding of the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. By that allocation and a jigging of the finances within the Vote, an additional £7 million is to be given to the scheme. The staggering increase from £4 million to £11 million shows just how totally incompetent the Government have been in maintaining normal economic life in the Province.
No wonder the initial estimate has been trebled, with 24,580 people on short time in the Province at the end of January with a total of about 108,000 unemployed. Does the Minister anticipate a similar rise in the numbers on short-time working over the next 12 months, and what prospects are there for those people to return to normal working? Or is the order merely to put off the inevitable day when they will join the ever-growing dole queue in Northern Ireland?
Usually with this order we consider the application of additional funds to sustain or improve industrial development. That is not so today. There is no mention of more money being made available for crippled industry in Northern Ireland. Instead, we are asked to vote money to keep industrial production at the all-time low that it has reached in the Province.
In 1980 manufacturing output in the textile industry declined by 26 per cent. It was also down by 26 per cent. in the timber and furniture industries. The decline in

mineral products was 16 per cent. In the detailed breakdown of Class II, Vote 4, we are told that the additional £7 million for the temporary short-time working compensation scheme is needed because of the"increased demand for assistance".
Why do not the Government realise that there is a vigorous demand for jobs in Northern Ireland to provide the economic security which it is plain that their policies cannot yield? The provision made for the unemployed in this order under Class II, Vote 4, and Class X, Vote 2, which requires an additional £5 million to be paid out to the unemployed, demonstrates that the Government are recklessly squandering all the economic achievements not only of the last Administration but of quite a few of their predecessors. It is difficult for some of us to watch in two years the disappearance of what has been painfully built up in Northern Ireland over 20 years.
There appears to be no enthusiasm among Northern Ireland Ministers for encouraging new jobs to come to the Province. Will the Minister say how many positive investment decisions have been made since the last Appropriation order was before the House? I would wager that even over the past year such decisions are far outweighed by the number of redundancies and factory closures.
I have a long list of all the announced closures and redundancies in Northern Ireland over the past 15 months. I cannot guarantee that it is fully comprehensive. It will take me a good few minutes to read it all out. For the sake of brevity I remind the Mininster of just a few of the closures which have necessitated the spending of £5 million under Class X, Vote 2. Some of the names on the list are those that I would never have expected to see.
Let us start with 10 January 1980, which witnessed redundancies at McLean and Bryce textiles. On 8 January it was Courtaulds. McCleary and L'Aimie followed. Then it was Courtaulds, and then Courtaulds again. When I recall that Courtaulds had 24 factories and was the largest employer in Northern Ireland in 1977–78 I can just imagine what is happening in the Province with the demise of that company. Olympia Business Machines announced redundancies in February 1980. The Carrickfergus plant of Courtaulds was closed completely. I cannot imagine Carrickfergus without Courtaulds. It certainly must be nearly a ghost town. The list continues with GEA Airexchangers of Bangor, Tern Consulate Shirts of Coleraine, Filtrona of Castlereagh, Grundig, Du Pont, Denny's of Portadown, the Rochester, Milford and Star factories at Londonerry and Cullan Valley Mills, the Goblin factory at Castlereagh, and, ICI fibres at Kilroot. There were only a few redundancies at GEC, and Courtaulds at Campsie is, we are told, under threat. The list goes on with British Enkalon at Antrim, Viking Cycles at Londonerry, and Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd. In addition, jobs are threatened at Euroweld, Goodyear—which I have visited—the Falls Flax Spinning Company, British Enkalon and Unidare Engineering at Portadown.

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman is reading out a list, the contents of which we all deeply deplore. But let us take Grundig as an example. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that the lack of profitability of Grundig in Germany, due to Japanese imports into Germany, is the fault of the Government.

Mr. Concannon: I can say only that as a Minister I encountered this problem with another firm in Northern Ireland. I concede that I probably had the benefit of a more enlightened Treasury Bench than the hon. Gentleman has these days. It allowed me to pick up some of the threads and to hold on to some of the jobs. It was much easier for me to the hang on to jobs we had than to chase new jobs that might never materialise. One of our priorities in those days was to ensure that we hung on to existing jobs, if necessary by the skin of our teeth. That is exactly what I did with some factories in Northern Ireland at that time.
In addition to this catalogue of failure in manufacturing industry there has been a series of redundancies in education, the Civil Service and the construction industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will deal with Classes VIII and XI, so I shall say just a few words about the construction industry. A survey published on 17 February 1981 shows that 8,421 construction workers have lost their jobs since last June and that a total of 23,257 building workers are currently unemployed. That staggering figure represents 50 per cent. of the total construction work force at a time when 14 per cent. of the housing stock in Northern Ireland is unfit. There is, therefore, clearly plenty of work to be done, and I find it totally incomprehensible that the Government are allowing yet more houses to fall into a state of disrepair and unfitness at the very time when an adequate and willing work force exists and wants to work.
I do not think that it is a good enough excuse for the Government to rely on what was done between 1974 and 1979. As the Minister said,
it should be said that the 1979 house condition survey revealed that there had been a significant impovement in the condition of the housing stock between 1974 and 1979. There was a 16 per cent. increase in sound houses and a 17 per cent. decrease in the number of houses requiring remedial action. The number of unfit houses fell by a quarter and the number of dwellings lacking one or more basic amenities fell by almost 30 per cent."—[Official Report, 22 January 1981; Vol 997, c. 535.]
When travelling around Northern Ireland generally, and Belfast in particular, one is struck by the vast amount of work that remains to be done under the housing programme. It is not enough for the Government to quote the impact of what was done by the last Administration and to use that as an excuse for cutting back on the plans of the Housing Executive. The present Administration should be trying to match the figures that we achieved, trying to do something about the terrible housing conditions in Northern Ireland.
It is no good Ministers in Northern Ireland claiming that this whole area is the responsibility of local government. That is what the Secretary of State for the Environment claims for the rest of the United Kingdom. However, in Northern Ireland the Minister who is responsible for the Department of the Environment is also responsible for local government, so the whole sphere is his responsibility. There is much to be done there and it is not good enough for the Government to use what we achieved as an excuse for cutting back on public expenditure on housing.
In despair I ask what the Government are doing to reduce unemployment. I note with dismay under Class II, Vote 4, that almost £400,000 is to be reduced from the budget of Enterprise Ulster. In the seventh annual report of Enterprise Ulster, which was published just after the last Appropriation order was discussed in this House, the board reported that for the first time since the organisation's

inception in 1973 job losses had occurred. Over 600 jobs have disappeared since May 1979, and recruitment has been practically non-existent since July of that year, when stringent cash limits forced this job-creating body to reduce its labour force by the non-replacement of leavers.
In addition to these cuts at a time of high unemployment, the function of Enterprise Ulster as a bridge between unemployment and employment is threatened. The more money that is taken from the organisation, the more it will become a form of unemployment relief. Rather than helping people back into the working world, it will mean they are simply biding their time between spells in the dole queue. The cut in the budget of Enterprise Ulster under this class will exacerbate the costs of materials and plant hire and make it difficult for the organisation to operate under the original aims laid out in 1973.
Because of what is happening to Enterprise Ulster, I view the recent announcement of the Minister responsible for the Department of Manpower Services to set up a community employment scheme with some scepticism. He said on 18 February of this new scheme:
In terms of the total number of unemployed in Northern Ireland this contributor is modest.
I take issue with the word"contributor". The fact that the budget of Enterprise Ulster is being cut back when a new scheme to create 450 jobs is to be set up means that there will be no net additional help for the unemployed in Northern Ireland. If anything, the Government are only putting back under a different name what they have already taken away—600 jobs from Enterprise Ulster are to be replaced by jobs in the community employment scheme.
I find little in Class II, Vote 4, to give hope for the unemployed. I note that there is to be no more money for the youth opportunities programme, even though there are 20,754 people under the age of 20 in Northern Ireland who do not have a job. That represents one-fifth of the people out of work. At the moment, despite the recent increase, the youth opportunities programme has only 10,000 places. This caters for only half, the young unemployed. What does the Minister propose to do to help the other 10,000 youngsters? We are frequently told that resources are needed to pay for industrial development, but the evidence of such development is thin on the ground. In any case, the conditions created by the Government mean that any money given to industrial development at the moment will not improve the job situation. Grants simply are not enough in an area where energy and freight costs are way above the national average.
On 20 January the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce made a plea to the Secretary of State to do something positive to help existing industries in the Province by subsiding electricity charges. Opposition Members and representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) have constantly criticised the energy situation in Northern Ireland. There is nothing in this Appropriation order to suggest that there will be a change, although the Prime Minister, in her Belfast speech last Thursday, said that the principle of bringing Northern Ireland energy pricing more closely into line with Great Britain had been conceded. We welcome that concession. Having allowed a situation of inequitable energy prices to grow up in Northern Ireland, it is only right that the Prime Minister should seek to remedy her own mistake. I hope that this


new attitude will take root in other policy areas. However, a number of questions need to be answered. It is right that they should be raised—
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): The right hon. Gentleman has accused the Government of allowing the energy differential to widen during our time in office. It has not.

Mr. Concannon: I put it like this. There was a time when I had this problem myself. I know what a fantastic amount of money it took to knock it down to something nearer the Great Britain level. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to narrow this down to what it was previously—the objective was to get it down to the price existing in Great Britain—I can only say that my recollection is that the Prime Minister spoke of bringing it more closely into line, and not into line, with great Britain. This does not alter the questions that I wish to put to the Secretary of State.
The Opposition will vigorously oppose any reallocation of resources away from housing, education or any other sector to pay for fairer energy prices. The Labour Government provided additional funds from the Treasury. The cost was £250 million over a five-year period to subsidise the electricity board and to bring prices down for the industrialists who were creating the furore. It was not done for domestic prices. I must ask the Government whether it is intended that domestic users should benefit.
The statement by the Prime Minister was fairly loosely worded. The situation should be spelt out clearly before someone is misled. We should know whether industry alone is affected or whether those words also apply to domestic prices. I ask the Secretary of State to consider these comments carefully when drawing up the main Estimates for the sums voted on account tonight.
There is no indication that any heed has been taken of the plea for help with transport costs, for a reduction in high interest rates and for a lower exchange rate in view of its adverse effect on cross-border trade. Even from what were traditionally bastions of support there is now severe criticism of the Government's economic policy. Following publication of the CBI's medium-term strategy last week, the chairman of the Northern Ireland CBI called for an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss job strategy. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can say when that meeting will take place or whether an agenda has been prepared. Will he say whether the call of the CBFs local council for increased public investment will be heeded and acted upon? There is great concern among industrialists in Northern Ireland that the Province's economy has been so seriously damaged that it will be unable to recover from the recession if and when it comes to an end.
For the benefit of Ministers who did not hear the words of Sir Philip Foreman, now the chairman of the Northern Ireland CBI council—I find it hard to say Sir Philip when"Phil" was the name we used—let me tell them what he said at a press conference last Thursday:
The terrible truth about unemployment in the Province is that the total out of work will soon outnumber the people employed in manufacturing".
It is about time that the Secretary of State did something positive about that terrible truth and started to fight the corner of the people of Northern Ireland on the economic front.
I turn to Class X, Vote 2. I am sorry that the additional amount sought for supplementary benefits is to cope with

the demands of the unemployed. This additional sum of only £5 million shows that the Government have little intention of attacking the dire social distress that exists in Northern Ireland. The Government statistics published only last week reveal what Opposition Members have been saying in these debates over the past year to be absolutely true. Northern Ireland is definitely the poor relation of the United Kingdom. The people there earn less and have less to spend than in any other region of the United Kingdom. It would not be far from the truth to say that the only industry that the Government have been successful in creating in Northern Ireland is the industry of unemployment. Certainly it would appear that additional jobs will be created by Vote 4 in Class X, but it is ironic in the extreme that these people will owe their jobs to the high level of unemployment in the Province. I refer to the extra civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Security to deal with the number of unemployed.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problems of farming in the Privince. It may not come directly under the class. Would he not agree, however, that agriculture in Northern Ireland is in distress and is desperate for help?

Mr. Concannon: I had not intended to neglect that area. My hon. Friend will have something to say about it. He has been dealing with farming and the farmers union, for some considerable time. During my period in Northern Ireland I was responsible only twice for that Department. My hon. Friend has met the farmers union, which has had some harsh comments to make.
This is a pitiful Appropriation order. It is a firm indication of the character of this Administration—static and uncreative. Many of the people of Northern Ireland are depressed and demoralised, not least the trade union movement. Despite what the Secretary of State would like to believe, I can tell him in no uncertain terms that profound pessimism is the mood of the Northern Ireland Committee. At the last Question Time on Northern Ireland affairs, when I questioned the Secretary of State the right hon. Gentleman replied:
My hon. Friend met the whole Committee last week and there was a useful exchange of views. I am happy to say that when 1 talk to the Committee I do not find quite the amount of pessimism that I detect in the right hon. Gentleman".—[Official Report, 12 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 973.]
I sat back and waited for the explosion from the NICICTU. Knowing the rosy language used by the secretary, Mr. Terry Carlin, I knew that I should not have to wait long for a missive. He said that he had heard the questions on Ulster Radio and added:
Mr. Atkins' comments drew from me on that occasion an immediate angry response. That is only because he doesn't
dot, dash, expletive deleted—
listen. For the record Mr. Atkins last met the NIC for discussion on the economic position when he attended our meeting with the Prime Minister on 6 August … With reference to the recent meeting with Mr. Butler, referred to on 12 inst., we did meet him on 3 February to discuss a number of matters relating to manpower services. He insisted on having a general economic discussion to begin with, and I can only assume that it was to provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity of saying that his colleague had met the NIC. In summary therefore, his reply is facile, flippant and misrepresents the Committee's views on the current desperately worrying economic situation.
The press statement after the latest unemployment figures were announced stated that the
Government's response on the other hand is a combination of complacency and hopelessly inadequate responses, such as


Mr. Butler's pathetic proposals announced last week. Mr. Atkins' complacency is matched only by his gross economic incompetence and his self-inflicted industrial blindness which does not allow him to see what is happening in the real world of industry outside the rosy gardens of Hillsborough Castle".
I am only quoting Mr. Caxlin and pointing to the pessimism that I detected, but which the Secretary of State could not detect.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Since the right hon. Gentleman has had to call on the services of Mr. Terry Carlin to make his speech, it might be reasonable for me to ask why, if Mr. Carlin had a message to convey to the Government, he declined to meet the Prime Minister on Thursday.

Mr. Concannon: That is a matter for Mr. Terry Carlin. I do not require him to write my speeches. I was merely replying to the Secretary of State's claim that he had not detected any sign of pessimism in the NICICTU. I was stating the answer that Mr. Carlin had sent to me.
None of us should be complacent when dealing with the economic problems of Northern Ireland. I take my own constituency as an example. Up to two years ago it was a receiving area for jobs. I used to count the unemployment in hundreds. I never thought that it would be possible for us to have 10 per cent. unemployment. There were times when I used to sit in my office in Northern Ireland and wonder what I would do if unemployment in my constituency reached the 10 per cent. level that existed in Northern Ireland. Lo and behold, two years later my constituency has 10 per cent. unemployment, and it seems to be rising.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), whose constituency is near mine, has an unemployment level of 11 per cent. When dealing with the problems of Northern Ireland we should remember that the Province's endemic unemployment level is much higher than that in the rest of Britain and certainly higher than the levels in the constituencies of Northern Ireland Ministers. The other Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barkston. Ash (Mr. Alison) has an unemployment level of just over 10 per cent. in his constituency. Unemployment in the Secretary of State's constituency is just over 5 per cent. In the constituency of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), unemployment is 8·6 per cent. and in Basingstoke, the constituency of the other Under-Secretary, the rate is about 6 per cent.
In view of all the points that I have raised I call on the Secretary of State to reconsider the priorities demonstrated in the order when he is drawing up the main Estimates to be debated in the summer. Clearly, the monetarist experiment has failed dismally in Northern Ireland. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at this delicate moment in the political situation in the Province the social consequences of unemployment may become unmanageable.
At present, more than one-third of families in Northern Ireland are suffering from the effects of unemployment—a situation that undermines normal social values and fuels anti-social tendencies. The order and the Prime Minister's speech are a recognition of the Government's failure. Let us hope that the full error of their ways does not become apparent before positive action—U-turns or call it what one will—is taken to halt the fireball of economic disaster in Northern Ireland.
The only hope for the people of Northern Ireland is to be rid of the Government as soon as possible, so that we can start again on the path of economic recovery for the people of the Province.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I welcome the concession on electricity prices, but I expected more from the Prime Minister on her recent visit to Northern Ireland. She did not say specifically that prices in Northern Ireland would be brought exactly into line with those in Great Britain and she made no mention of how the concession was to be funded.
The cost must not be taken out of Northern Ireland funds, but must be an addition to those funds. Other hon. Members and I have complained for years about the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland. The concession, as it is called, will not do all that much to bring down the cost of living. That is why I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did not announce a series of measures to show that the Government were at last aware of the need to launch a regional programme to deal with the massive unemployment in Northern Ireland.
Many people fear, and I suspect, that the Prime Minister's visit to the Province was dictated more by the need to counter the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not with us tonight, and his allegations than to tackle the serious unemployment and industrial situation in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that what happened in the city hall contributed one bit to the true image of Northern Ireland and Ulster men and women who are, as I have often said before, kind-hearted, humorous and decent people, and who are anxious to do their best for their families and for the Province as a whole.
I listened with respect when the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) listed the catalogue of firms that are in jeopardy. He was right to point out that the figure of 100,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland is equivalent to 4 million unemployed in Britain. That would be a shocking and unacceptable figure to most people in Britain, and we in Northern Ireland cannot accept the equivalent figure of 100,000.
I know men who have become unemployed for the first time after 30 years of their working lives. I know young men and women who have worked for less than 12 months since leaving school three years ago. There are 6,000 boys and girls in Ulster who have never had a job since leaving school at the age of 16. Of the 160,000 who were working in wealth-creating manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland in 1978, 42,000 are idle. That figure includes nearly half the workers in the textile and man-made fibre industries.
The startling fact is that the narrow base of Ulster's post-war prosperity has been decimated and, with present Government policies, I cannot see its being revived in this century. That is a terrible statement to have to make, but we must be frank in our judgments of the situation so that Ulster people are aware of it and the Government realise the seriousness of the situation.
Where is the evidence of the creation of a new industrial base in Northern Ireland? There is none. Where is the concerted planning for the revival of manufacturing when the trade recession finally ends? There is none. This Government, dispite their promises and great activity, and despite the visit of the Prime Minister last weekend to Northern Ireland, have failed the Ulster people.
The situation in Northern Ireland is very serious. I still hope that the Government will take action to help Ulster. It is only by making sure that there are jobs and that industry is maintained that people will have hope in the midst of terrorism. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that aspect of Ulster's problems.
Over £112 million is required for the first half of the next financial year to support manpower services, such as training and aid to industry. The traditional division of manpower services being responsible for the short-term counter-unemployment measures while the Department of Commerce is responsible for the longer-term measures weakens the overall attack on the social scourge of 100,000 persons without work and with no prospect of work. There are 1,000 unemployed school teachers. The teaching force has been reduced by 250 this year. Those resources of trained men and women should be mobilised to bring new life and fresh hope to the flagging hearts and the dreary frustrations of our young unemployed.
No doubt the Minister will say that he has added 3,000 places to the youth opportunities scheme. Of course I welcome that, but the dismal reality is that the ideas of the Holland report were designed as a stop-gap for boys and girls and men and women who were not likely to be unemployed for more than a few months. Ulster's unemployed will be long-term unemployed unless radical and drastic action is taken quickly.
It has been estimated that even a small imposition of tariffs on imported clothes, carpets, shoes and a man-made fibres would transform the position. But the Government are as frightened of upsetting the United States by such action as they are about insisting on the repeal of the offensive ban on hand guns for the Royal Uslter Constabulary'. In Ulster today 20,000 people are unemployed because of imports from America, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Apparently, the Government are never happier than when they are falling in with the wishes of the United States war machine or with the United States Department of Commerce. If we are a special friend of the United States, it is high time that the Government forced the Americans to show their friendship for this country.
I turn to the question of education. Again, the Government are overspending on the training of teachers. Over £2 million a year could be saved and used to help the unemployed by abolishing the special privilege that is given to organised religion by keeping open three teacher-training colleges—St. Mary's, St. Joseph's and Stranmillis.
The new university has 2,500 fewer students than the original plans envisaged. It has room for 1,500 more students in the existing buildings. It has the most generous staff-student ratio of any institution in Northern Ireland, and better than most universities in Great Britain—about 1:8. It is ludicrous not to fill those empty lecture rooms with the students who are potential teachers. In the university they would escape the divisive influence of separate sectarian teaching and would share to the full the advantage of being in a university community.
No doubt the Minister will say that he has to wait for the final report of the Chilver committee. However, I believe that he would do and say anything and spend any amount of money to avoid the prospect of a clash with the Churches. I have said categorically before, and I do so again, that the existence of two separate education systems in Ulster is the most diabolical curse ever visited on our people. The very first Ulster Government in

1923—something that is not remembered—inserted the following words in the very first Northern Ireland Education Act;
Education authorities shall not provide religious instruction in any public elementary school".
Of course, Churches could go to schools and give religious education if they wished, but not at taxpayers' expense.
Unfortunately, that fine radical measure ran foul of the denominationalists, who even out-distanced the Roman Catholic Church authorities—and that is saying something—in their opposition and intransigence. Ulster's first Parliament weakened, and I regret to say that the words were deleted in an amending Act of 1925. That was the first surrender by the new Ulster Parliament to the demands of the sectarians. It did untold damage to generations of Ulster children.
There were to be other equally infamous surrenders in education until today, when we have the sad situation in which innocent children are kept apart between the ages of 5 and 16. That is unacceptable. I want the Government to have the courage to say that they have had enough of a system whereby Protestant and Catholic boys and girls must go their separate ways and only at the age of 16 or 17 can they first become acquainted at work. It is an impossible situation, and certainly is no sure foundation for any community. Taxpayers' money ought not to be used to support a system of educational apartheid that is as rigid and as humiliating to human dignity as the school systems of Durban and Johannesburg. That is wrong. The Government should take action and, if they want to help Northern Ireland, they should act on the Chilver committee's interim report.
I turn to the subject of the construction industry. The right hon. Member for Mansfield spoke of its plight, with over 8,000 having lost their jobs since last June. Of the total work force, 50 per cent. are now unemployed. It is an extraordinary situation and one that it is difficult for Ulster people to comprehend. New housing is needed, and some existing houses need to be brought up to a proper standard. People who are on the waiting list for a house in Ulster see no hope of getting one in the near future, and yet they see men out of work who could build those houses.
That is not government; it is sheer madness. There are too many young people who feel desperately frustrated as they face a long period waiting for a home of their own. Decency and humanity demand that the Government should adopt a policy that would enable those people to have a home within a reasonable time. If people have a home and an opportunity to bring up their families in decent circumstances, there is a better prospect for Northern Ireland.
Finally, I want to mention a charity in my own constituency—the Newtownards Gateway Club. The Gateway Club has branches in other parts of North Down and throughout Northern Ireland. It does wonderful work for the mentally handicapped. I have attended some of its functions and seen how it has been able to give happiness and help to young mentally handicapped people and to adults who suffer from mental disturbance. Yet this club in Newtownards, which used to have a minibus provided on two evenings a week, has been told by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board that it can no longer have the bus because the board has been instructed by the Government to cut its expenditure.
I should have thought that there were many ways in which one could save money without denying to the mentally handicapped the few hours of pleasure that these voluntary workers provide. Their work enabled the parents and relatives to get some relief when their disabled relatives were in the care of the Gateway Club in Newtownards. It is a disgrace, and I hope that the Government will say that they will provide the money so that the minibus will again be available on two nights a week to bring disabled children and adults from the Ards peninsula into the town.
I protested to the Minister about the decision, but he merely passed on my letter to the chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, and the chairman wrote to me—and that shows the bureaucracy that has been imposed on Northern Ireland. His reply was very brief. It said that he had been told by his officials that he had to withdraw the transport services and that he had accepted his officials' advice.
There was no humanity in the board's approach to the needs of the Newtonards Gateway Club. It showed that the board was concerned only with pleasing the Minister, and that the Minister in turn was concerned only with pleasing the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by showing how much it had been able to cut. But in this case the cut has been made to services for people who perhaps have not the strength to protest as vehemently as other organisations, and this is where the Government are failing to provide good government.
I complained to the Minister, and he wrote to me on 25 February. He said that the board's decision had been taken within the policy laid down by his Department and that"it would be inappropriate" for him to intervene. But that is only begging the question. If the matter were left there it would mean that no Member of this House could question the reason for the withdrawal of a service formerly provided by a health board. No hon. Member would ever be able to get at the truth and to find out whether there were other options that could have been followed by the health board and been less damaging to the work of voluntary organisations.
I am entitled to ask how big and important and how vital a decision by the health board must be before the Minister thinks that it is appropriate for him to intervene. He cannot abdicate his responsibility.
I end, as I began, by referring to the Prime Minister's visit to Northern Ireland. As I said in this Chamber earlier today, many people were disturbed by her failure to make a full and frank statement about the result of the summit conference in Dublin, and they are even more concerned now because of the report in the Irish Press, the official organ of the Fianna Fail party—the party in power in Dublin—that the Anglo-Eire study group is considering a federal Ireland as one of the options.
The people of Northern Ireland do not know the true situation. The only way for them to have peace of mind is for the Government, late in the day as it may be, to make a full statement about the summit conference and to give the guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister for that Anglo-Eire study group so that people know the parameters, exactly what the position is and whether any danger exists.
If there is fear, some politicians will be able to play on that fear and work havoc in Northern Ireland. I do not want that, and I do not believe that the Government want it, either.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: After we last debated an Appropriation order I took the precaution of preserving my notes. Looking through them now. it seems justifiable to have hoped for some improvement in the position in Northern Ireland. However, far from seeing any improvement, we see an increase of nearly 10,000 in the number of unemployed since we last had the opportunity to debate an Appropriation order.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was quite right to bring before the House information about the brutal and ruthless cuts now being made by the Government in services provided for the disabled in Northern Ireland. We have been told in press statements and on television that this is International Year of Disabled People. For the disabled in Northern Ireland this year will be worse than any other year through which they have lived.
If the Government had any humanity or compassion they would have gone out of their way to show some consideration for the thousands of disabled people in Northern Ireland. Survey after survey has shown that there are far more disabled people in that region of the United Kingdom than in any other part of it, and their disablement has been brought about because of the poverty and social deprivation that we have known in Northern Ireland since the creation of the State. That is a situation for which successive British Governments must bear responsibility, whether Conservative or Labour. They were in sole control of conditions in Northern Ireland. Until 1968, when the House began to consider Northern Ireland, far too many of those Governments were prepared to let Northern Ireland look after itself. One can see from the state of health of thousands of our disabled how neglected they were.
The hon. Member for Down, North quoted a case in which he was involved concerning a minibus being taken out of service. I received a letter recently from the North and West Belfast health and social services district committee saying that at its February meeting it"learned that because of the present financial situation the Eastern Health and Social Services Board's schemes for financial assistance towards:

(a) the adaptation of accommodation for the physically handicapped,
(b) the provision of television for the housebound, and
(c) the installation of telephones for the elderly and handicapped


had been abandoned in October 1980 and would remain so for the remainder of the current financial year.
Indeed, it was also indicated that the reinstatement of these schemes in the fiscal year 1981–82 will be dependent upon adequate funds being made available.
The members of the District Committee were greatly disturbed by this information and felt that taking into account that 1981 is the 'International Year of Disabled People' a line of positive action should be taken to have these schemes restored."
Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make another Budget Statement. I do not believe that we can expect by this time tomorrow to have had a ringing declaration in favour of the poor, under-privileged and disabled, whether in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom. In addition to all the other


disabilities with which people in Northern Ireland have had to live, this insult is being heaped upon the disabled, as no consideration is being given to them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mentioned that 100,000 people were unemployed. I agreed with him when he said that that was not the true figure. During my last speech on an Appropriation order I said that I suspected that the total figure—without the increase of 10,000 in the last few months—was 125,000. In Northern Ireland the real total of unemployed, of people who would take jobs or any type of" employment if it were offered to them, is now about 130,000. One has only to reflect on that terrible figure for a moment to recognise the distress and despair that it brings, not only to those who are unemployed, but to their dependents.
I reiterate the question of the hon. Member for Down, North about whether there is any Government plan to try to grapple with this terrible tragedy in Northern Ireland. I again pose a question that I posed during the debate on the last Appropriation order. Is there any possibility of financial assistance from the EEC? Over the last six months the hopes of people in Northern Ireland were raised. They were told by spokesmen of the EEC that if Britain were to make an application for funds to be spent in the city of Belfast and in Northern Ireland generally, those funds would readily be made available.
I did not believe that propaganda at the time. Some people from the South as well as some from the North of Ireland were ruthlessly exploiting the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland. Meeting after meeting took place with so-called spokesmen of the EEC, which gave rise to great hope, but which in turn led to great despair when it was discovered that the promised pot of gold that was to come from the EEC was not there. I ask the Minister to say whether there is any chance of an increase in funds from the EEC to grapple with the terrible problem of social deprivation in Northern Ireland.
It is the duty of the Minister of State to be more explicit than the Prime Minister was and to tell us exactly what the right hon. Lady meant when she said that Northern Ireland electricity prices were to be brought into line with those in other parts of the United Kingdom. I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North that the right hon. Lady did not have to go to Northern Ireland to make that announcement. It could have been made anywhere and at any time. It is not the habit of the Government to send Prime Ministers all over the United Kingdom to make such announcements.
The right hon. Lady rightly went to Northern Ireland to counteract the propaganda of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). In his absence I make no apology for saying that it would be better if he were here tonight to debate the issues that affect his constituents. The fact that he is not here should not go unnoticed by the unemployed in Carriekfergus, Larne, Ballymena and other parts of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade), in both of whose areas there is tragic unemployment, should also be here. This is the place to voice their concern for those who depend on their case being put. It is not all that difficult to get here from Northern Ireland. Let no one be deceived into thinking that it is the strike by air traffic controllers that has kept those hon. Members away. There are other ways of getting out

of the Province, if the three hon. Members had been interested enough. They could even have stayed here to await this debate.
The Prime Minister could have made her announcement of this belated change in the House. It could have been announced long before the hon. Member for Antrim, North went on the Carson trail. The price of electricity in Northern Ireland has been so disabling for so many thousands of people, not only in industry, but on the domestic scene, that it did not need a constitutional crisis or someone going on the Carson trail to make the Government change their mind.
I say with great reluctance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that his Government could have done exactly the same. They did not. There were many things that the Labour Government could have done and many that they found it impossible to do. Representing a Northern Ireland constituency, I cannot completely exonerate previous Governments for allowing that situation to continue.

Mr. Concannon: Our announcement of the £250 million grant to the Northern Ireland Electricity Board in, I think, 1977 was welcomed by my hon. Friend and others.

Mr. Fitt: Yes, I accept that, but it still left the price of electricity in Northern Ireland 23 per cent. higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I should have hoped that with the uncertain future facing the gas industry—the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) can speak on that matter with far more experience than I can—some help could be given there as well.
The Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland to announce this little modification. The Minister of State, who is here, had no hesitation in answering a written question this afternoon from an hon. Member who does not represent a Northern Ireland constituency. He was obviously told to put down a planted question. Surely the Minister does not think that we are stupid. Surely he does not believe that we do not know what a planted question is. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) happened to table a question for answer today so that we could be told that there would be an increase of 37 ½ per cent. in the price of private sector housing rents and that more houses would be brought into the scheme, which will lead to a further dramatic increase in rents. If the Prime Minister had to go to the expense of flying to Northern Ireland in the present state of the economy, she could have made that statement in Northern Ireland. I understand that a written parliamentary question costs a few bob to answer.
The hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was told in a written reply last August that there was to be a reallocation of resources involving £50 million. That amounted to a miniature Budget for Northern Ireland. I hope that I voice the concern of all Northern Ireland Members in saying that an announcement of such importance should not be made in a written answer to an hon. Gentleman who represents an English constituency.

Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Gentleman is on a dangerous course. He is saying that English Members are not interested in Northern Ireland. Some of us are interested, and tabling questions shows our interest.

Mr. Fitt: I am not trying to restrict the rights of any hon. Member. We debated the rent order in Committee. Our constituents were affected by that order. I accept that


Members from England, Scotland or Wales have the right to seek information, but their constituents will not be paying a 37½ per cent. increase in rents. I resent such a question being planted.
The Appropriation order is the equivalent of Northern Ireland's Budget. It gives scope to bring constituency problems to the House. I join other hon. Members in objecting to what appears to be the lack of concern of the Government for the Northern Ireland textile industry. They have shown scant concern for the textile industry in other parts of the United Kingdom. Outside the Belfast shipyards, the textile industry was the linchpin of the economy. It gave employment throughout the little towns and villages. It has been all but decimated. Looking as hopefully into the future as I can, I cannot see that there will be any resurgence of the textile industry as we knew it in Northern Ireland. If we accept that—and we must—the Government must ask what they can provide as an alternative. The textile industry has gone for ever.
Last week a deputation from the industry came to the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I was not able to meet the members of that deputation. They came from Northern Ireland, at no little expense, to try to influence opinion within the House to save the remaining industry in Northern Ireland. Those to whom I have spoken returned to Northern Ireland with the hopeless feeling that the few remaining jobs are insecure and that possibly by the summer of this year they will have gone also. If the textile industry in Northern Ireland has no future, I urge the Government to find some way, somehow, to do something quickly to attract some other industry that will employ those who have become unemployed because of the recession.
I wish to refer briefly to some of the Estimates being presented this evening. Class I covers a subject about which I rarely speak. In the past years I have not been in contact with the Department of Agriculture at all, but only last week I had the temerity to telephone its private office. I am sure that it was as astounded as I was about that. I contacted it about a river that runs through my constituency at Glen Road in West Belfast. That river is polluted, and the many rats around it scare the lives out of those who live in the immediate area. I contacted the health department of the Belfast city council, which told me to talk to somebody in the Departent of the Environment, which in turn said that it was the concern of the Department of Agriculture. I hope that between the health department of the city council, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture—which I believe is responsible for open rivers—and the Minister, inquiries will be made into the condition of the river at Glen Road.
I turn to the most important section of the order, namely, Class II, which covers the Department of Commerce. That Department is charged with the responsibility of trying to attract industries to Northern Ireland to take up some of the 100,000 unemployed. It is important that that Department also recognises its responsibility to try to maintain existing industry in Northern Ireland. It is sometimes easier in the long run to maintain existing jobs than to depend on being able to attract American, German and Japanese industries at some time in the future. Those countries have their own economic problems, and charity begins at home. It is the

Government's duty to maintain existing jobs rather than to let them go and hope that something will turn up in the future.
There has been some talk about the position in Northern Ireland which I do not believe. The hon. Member for Knutsford has received more support on this issue than he would otherwise have received. There are plenty of decent, hard-working Unionists in Northern Ireland who believe tenaciously in the link with the United Kingdom. Their fears and suspicions have been aroused by the mysterious circumstances attached to the summit meeting and the lack of information.
Many of them have attended meetings organised on the so-called Carson trail. It is an emotional issue. The hon. Members for Antrim, North and for Belfast, East have been saying that the fall off in employment and factory closures are symptoms of a British economic withdrawal from Northern Ireland. I do not believe that there is that political significance in factory closures. They are taking place because of the Government's hardhearted and ruthless outlook and their mad pursuit of monetarism. There is no such thing as the economic withdrawal that is spoken of by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
The Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council was set up by the Government and charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the interests of electricity users. It has performed a useful function. I have received a recent communication from the council—I am sure that it has been received by others—that states that the Government's withdrawal of the additional heating allowance on 24 November 1980 has caused real hardship. The allowance was payable to those in receipt of supplementary benefit because the price of electricity was higher in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. It was designed as a compensatory allowance. We have been told that the price of electricity will be reduced, but the withdrawal of the allowance has caused great hardship.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on electricity tariffs is likely to be of great benefit to those on or near the poverty line?

Mr. Fitt: I accept that. I only hope that my confidence and that of the hon. Gentleman is not misplaced. The Prime Minister's announcement is rather like the Dublin summit. Nobody knows exactly what it means. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what it will mean. Will it be for domestic consumers, or will it be only for industrial consumers? What will the rate be? Will it be exactly as it is in other parts of the United Kingdom? There needs to be clarification. Where will the money come from? Will it be taken from some other Department in Northern Ireland?
The hon. Member for Knutsford tabled a question in July 1980 on the De Lorean car project. The answer stated that the company was to get £14 million and that £10 million was to be taken from one Department, £5 million from another and £3 million from a third. Was that money taken from other Departments so that it could be made available to the De Lorean project? The Departments of Health and Social Services, Housing and Education suffered drastically.

Mr. Wm. Ross: And the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Fitt: I am not sure about that. I merely know that other Departments suffered badly because of the reallocation of resources. If that was a reallocation of resources, the fewer we see of them the better. The reallocation meant that we had £10 million less for housing, £10 million less for health and social services and £26 million less to spend on the environment, £13 million of which was cut from the housing allocation. I find myself in agreement with many of the sentiments that the hon. Member for Down, North appeared to express this evening.
One of the greatest problems in Belfast is housing. Every day I have an advice centre. When I am not there my wife and daughter run it. About 80 or 90 per cent. of those who come to see me have housing problems. Every time that I get in touch with the Housing Executive 1 am told that the houses being built are for redevelopment areas or for Al category people. Ordinary young people who get married and put their names down for a house have no chance. I am told that by a series of district managers in the city of Belfast. I know that it is also true of the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland has the worst housing in Western Europe. Sociologists and other experts in the Common Market agree that Northern Ireland has by far the most appalling housing conditions in Western Europe.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman include Italy in Western Europe?

Mr. Fitt: I do not want to get involved in an international debate. We have enough problems without that.
The Government appear to be concerned about spending money in the right way. How does the Minister responsible for the environment in Northern Ireland justify telling Belfast city council to employ people to pull down fly posters? After 6 or 7 pm in Belfast there is little social life. There are few places to which one can go with security. In the past troubled decade a few promoters have tried to run dances and bring international artists to Belfast. The)' therefore need to advertise in the local press and by displaying posters on hoardings.
If I knew who it was in the Department of the Environment, I should sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk with him, but somebody decided to tell the council to remove graffiti. Graffiti in Northern Ireland usually refers to 1916, 1690, the Queen or the Pope. Advertising that a punk rock group is visiting Belfast is not nearly as offensive—though some people may find it so. However, no sooner are posters put up by the people who are trying to bring some social life to Belfast than someone to do with the corporation tears them down. The promoter has to pay for someone to put up his bills; they are then torn down the next morning. The printers, the promoters and those who stick up the bills have made representations to me. I have written to the Minister about this. If there has to be cheese-paring, that is one area in which it could take place. The money saved there could perhaps be channelled into North Down to compensate for what has been taken away. People must get their priorities right.
I am glad to see that as a result of the strong representations made during the last Appropriation order debate the Minister has decided to retain the Sports Council functions under Class VIII. The people of

Northern Ireland, through their representatives—my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench as well as some hon. Members on the Conservative Benches—made representations to ensure that the Government's mind is not completely closed.
The increase in expenditure of £5 million to which my right hon. Friend referred has been brought about by the increase in the number of unemployed. Again, on the question of spending money in the right way, the Government must surely realise that it is better to keep a man in a job than to pay him unemployment benefit. Yet they appear to accept that the unemployment figures must be allowed to rise to whatever the level they may reach and to be prepared to pay unemployment benefit. Even from a Conservative point of view that is very bad economics. It is a very bad and wasteful way of spending taxpayers' money to keep on paying out unemployment and social security benefit without, in effect, even trying to create work.
The people of Northern Ireland are not demanding exorbitant wages. Northern Ireland does not have thousands of industrial wreckers who are determined to wreck the economy. It does not have a strike record that is in danger of wrecking its industry. At present, Northern Ireland has the highest uptake for family income supplement in the United Kingdom. That means that those people are in employment, but that they are working for less than they would receive if they were not working. It gives the lie to any idea that there are thousands of layabouts in Northern Ireland who do not wish to work but prefer to live on social security.
The 8,500 to 9,000 people receiving family income supplement are in employment, but they are working for less than they would receive if they were on the dole. The difference therefore has to be made up by means of supplementary payments. That in itself should be sufficient indication that the people of Northern Ireland want to work. They are not strikers. They are not out to wreck industry in Northern Ireland.
The record of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland is an enviable one. The Minister must agree, by and large, from the discussions that he has had with trade union leaders in Northern Ireland, that they are not far-out Lefties or people who support some other far-out view. They are people who are trying their damnedest to create conditions in which their members will be allowed to remain in employment.
As I have said, this Appropriation order is tantamount to a small Budget for Northern Ireland, and I recognise that without it life in Northern Ireland would come to a standstill. Nevertheless, it leaves a great deal to be desired. It could have shown more sympathy, understanding and compassion for all the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly, as I have already said and I emphasise again, the disabled of Northern Ireland, who are suffering tremendously as a result of the heartless attitude of the Government. It is easy to kick someone who cannot walk or who is suffering from physical disability. He cannot do anything for himself. He has to depend upon the generosity of the Government, and he is not getting it.
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) has recently taken up his first ministerial position. I urge him to include in his reading material a magazine from Northern Ireland known as"Scope". It is an informative magazine, which takes into account all the needs of the under-privileged groups in Northern Ireland. This month's issue reports that


Age Concern in Northern Ireland is extremely concerned about the future because the number of under-privileged groups is increasing and very little provision is being made to solve the problem within the next decade.
It would help if the Government and the Minister were to look five or 10 years into the future to see in what direction their policies are taking us. In an area where there is social deprivation, mass unemployment and very little concern for the disabled, frustrations are building up. Those frustrations build up until there is a social upheaval. I am surprised that there has not been a social upheaval in other parts of the United Kingdom because of Government policies since 1969. Throughout the past decade I have lived through that type of social upheaval in Northern Ireland, and I should not want to see it pushed on to people in England, Scotland or Wales.
Even though many of my remarks relate to Northern Ireland, they have a general bearing on social conditions throughout the United Kingdom. I urge the Minister to look at the matters that I have raised, because I believe that they have a real effect on the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland. If possible, I urge him to show just a little more humanity and concern for the problems of the people who live in that part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that the trade union movement in Northern Ireland is to be commended. There has been a deterioration in recent years, but it is true that the record of industrial relations and the sense of responsibility in the Northern Ireland trade unions are superior to that in Great Britain. We should also recognise the part that the trade unions have played in preventing sectarian trouble at places of work.
The hon. Gentleman charged the Prime Minister—so did the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—with ambiguity in her statement about electricity. However, there is one question which the hon. Member for Belfast, West could have answered for himself had he read my right hon. Friend's speech. She said that the"major decision of principle" on electricity
will be welcomed by commerce, industry and agriculture, as well as by domestic consumers".
She said that this was
evidence that the Government is responsive to the needs of this part of the United Kingdom",
and added that it was confirmation
of the Government's economic commitment to the Province".
Those words are important, because, although the hon.
Gentleman said that he did not believe it, he pointed out that members of the Democratic Unionist Party were going about saying that there was some intention on the part of the Government to disengage economically from the Province. That is just not so. Indeed, the Prime Minister went to the root of Ulster's economic problem when she referred to energy. She said:
we have in the Province one overriding economic problem—the cost of energy, particularly electricity".
I want to ask one question about bringing Northern Ireland tariffs more closely into line with those of England and Wales. The statement says:
The tariff increases due on 1 April will be reviewed in the light of this decision.

Is the cost of that provided for in the Appropriation order, or will the Government have to return to the House for additional funds to meet the cost?
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will have noticed that the Prime Minister offered no hope for the gas industry, unless he considered the orderly rundown as something to be welcomed. The Prime Minister also referred to the possibility of receiving supplies of gas from Kinsale in the Republic. My right hon. Friend said:
we are looking at that possibility with an open mind".
Is that one of the subjects for joint studies with the Republic? Is that one of the matters being discussed?
Energy has long been a matter of co-operation between the North and the South. In the communiqué issued after the talks between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Dublin on 8 December, the two leaders
noted with satisfaction the useful exchanges at Ministerial and official level leading to new and closer co-operation in energy, transport, communications, cross-border economic developments and security.
I ask the question partly because I share the curiosity of other hon. Members about exactly what is being discussed. All kinds of impressions are abroad. The Dail has been debating defence for the first time for many years because, it is alleged, the possibility of a defence pact is one of the topics. While the House and the country are not informed about what is going on, there will be rumours and inventions. I am not sure that that is healthy.
Diplomacy and international discussions do not prosper in the glare of publicity, but, whether it be our dealings within the European Community or with other foreign Powers, there comes a time when it is appropriate for Ministers to make a statement in the House. I hope that before too long it will be possible for a statement to be made.
The communiqué on the talks on 8 December referred in paragraph 6 to"possible new institutional structures". I hope that I shall not be trespassing on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House if I mention one existing institutional structure which dates from 1786. It is an all-Ireland institutional structure, the 21 Commissioners of Irish Lights, upon whose transport I have had the pleasure of sailing. It is an all-Ireland institution of proved value on which we can question the Department of Trade. I know that that can be done because I have done it.
Although it is without the compass of the order, I mention that institutional structure because one of the 21 members of the Commission of Irish Lights is the Lord Mayor of Dublin. It should be placed on the record by more than one hon. Member how deeply we deplore the violent insult offered to this distinguished foreign visitor by supporters of the Democratic Unionist Party. They are absent from one of the more important Northern Ireland debates of the year. I hope that it is because the hon. Members concerned are ashamed of themselves. If so, at least there is some sign of grace.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am sure that the hon. Member will accept that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) received far more publicity from the fracas at the Belfact city hall than this debate will receive in the media in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That is probably unfortunately so, but some of us are concerned with the welfare of Northern Ireland, not for our publicity or the publicity of a particular political group.
The Prime Minister referred to the advantage to agriculture of the decision of principle on electricity. Although I see my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) in his place and hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and knowing that he is well informed on this subject, I hope that he will not mind my saying a word about the serious state of agriculture, on which I asked a parliamentary question—

Mr. Fitt: Was it a planted question?

Mr. Biggs-Davidson: No, it was not planted. I worked it all out for myself. The answer to this question by my hon. Friend the Minister of State showed that
The aggregate net income of farming in Northern Ireland fell by 47 per cent. from 1978 to 1979 and is estimated to have fallen by a further 60 per cent. or more from 1979 to 1980. There are no separate figures available for Great Gritain, but corresponding figures for the United Kingdom as a whole are 7 per cent. and about 10 per cent."—[Official Report, 30 January 1981; Vol. 997, c 535.]
Put in real terms, the fall in farm incomes was 60 per cent. in 1979 and is estimated to be between 70 and 80 per cent. in 1980. It is remarkable that production has not yet fallen to the extent that might be expected, but I suppose that that is because fanners cling to their stock in the hope of better times coming.
Let me say a word about agriculture in the county of Fermanagh. For long that county has in effect been disfranchised in this House, so perhaps it will be proper for me to say something about that part of Northern Ireland. By"disfranchised" I do not mean by the regretted decease of Mr. Frank Maguire, the late Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. However, 90 per cent. of the land area of the county is a less-favoured area—speaking of which, I hope that Northern Ireland will not have to wait for full delimitation of these areas until the survey in Great Britain has been completed. Matters in Northern Ireland are too serious for that.
Recently, the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reported that 122 animals were starving on a farm near Fermanagh's border with Tyrone. I understand that earlier cases of animals in this condition had been reported in that county. What information does the Minister have—whether from the RUC or from officers of the Department of Agriculture—of the state of cattle and the provison of fodder? How true is it, to speak more generally, that many farmers are on the edge of bankruptcy, including enterprising young farmers who undertook heavy capital investment on borrowed money?
From a non-Government source, I am informed that farmers' overdrafts showed an increase of £38 million since January 1980 and stood at £181 million in November while the net income for the year was estimated at £13 million. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, about £4 million of European money is to go to the subsidising of improved grain handling facilities at the major ports in Northern Ireland. The higher cost of feed is one of the great difficulties of Northern Ireland agriculture. What effect will the application of this £4 million have on the extra cost of feeding stuff, and when?
Have the Government any other measures in mind to assist with transport costs or to support milk prices? Do Ministers agree with the allegation by the Ulster Fanners Union that, in the pigs sector, hidden subsidies are given in France and Denmark? I understand that on 13 January the Ulster Fanners Union met the Minister of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that the latter promised speedy action. What has resulted, or is to result, from that? I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the efforts that he made in Brussels on behalf of Northern Ireland and the package put together there. I hope that the principle of additionally will not give difficulty.
When one considers the plight of agriculture in Northern Ireland, one thinks, despite what was said by the right hon. Member for Mansfield, of the millions of pounds that have been made available not only for De Lorean but for other industrial enterprises. I believe that, without adding unduly to public expenditure, prompt and sensible measures can do much to relieve a serious situation. To cherish agriculture is to cherish Ulster.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) reminded the House that, at regular intervals over the past seven years, I have been arguing that parity of pricing for energy in Northern Ireland would, at one stroke, give a boost to our community across the board—to the pensioner, who is bearing fuel costs much in excess of pensioners in other parts of the United Kingdom, and to the industrialist, who also bears a substantial surcharge for energy compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. For that reason I welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister in Northern Ireland last week.
We started off by demanding parity. We have finished up by begging for it. We demanded it because we thought that we had a right to it. We implored, wheedled and argued. We were told at various times, particularly by the predecessor of the Minister in charge of commerce, that we had no right to expect parity and that we had no right to share in the resources of the United Kingdom. It was gratifying to read last week the Prime Minister's remarks on the matter. Perhaps we should not have been banging on the door of the Department of Commerce. Perhaps we should have been banging on the door of No. 10 Downing Street.
It was nice to hear the Prime Minister say that in the Province we have one overriding problem—the cost of energy, particularly electricity. We have been saying that for seven years. The Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland did not want to hear us.
I wish to put the Prime Minister's remarks on the record in case the reservations that have been expressed come true. The right hon. Lady said:
Whatever the future prospects for gas, electricity prices will continue to be of vital concern to Northern Ireland consumers …these tariffs are an unreasonable burden upon the Northern Ireland community … We have decided to bring Northern Ireland electricity tariffs more closely into line with those in England and Wales, and to keep them there. Because of the importance of energy costs to the whole Northern Ireland economy, this is a major decision of principle.
It is a principle for which we have been arguing for seven years. We are glad that the principle has been accepted and granted.
There may be reservations, with which I shall deal later, but I do not see how the Government can get out of that commitment if they do not mean it. Therefore, I start from the assumption that the principle has been conceded and they mean it.
Once that is accepted, there is no way that money to finance the commitment can be found from any source in


Northern Ireland. It will cost an awful lot of money. If the Government attempted to finance it by taking money from other areas of the economy of Northern Ireland they would destroy us by that means, just as they were destroying us slowly by charging us more for our energy.
Let us consider what the Prime Minister may have meant. She said that the Government had decided to bring Northern Ireland electricity tariffs"more closely into line" with those of England and Wales. What does"more closely into line" mean? Does it mean bringing tariffs into line with the average of England and Wales? That would imply that Northern Ireland was the equivalent of the average area in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not; it is the most under-privileged area in the United Kingdom. The Government cannot say that they will grant us the average cost for England and Wales. It must be more than that.
Queen's University in Belfast was recently asked to select a region of England or Wales that roughly corresponded to Northern Ireland. The geography department of the university advised that an area embracing Northumburland, Durham and Tyne and Wear had similar geographical, industrial, urban, rural and social characteristics to those of Northern Ireland. We did not need Queen's University to tell us that. Anyone looking at the two regions would see that they had substantial similarities—old, decaying industries, such as shipbuilding and heavy engineering works, backed by a rural hinterland and matching urban and rural deprivation.
What is the situation on electricity tariffs in that area of the North-East? The National Utility Service news brief No. 13 of December 1980, supplied to me by the Library, points out that in the league table for electricity tariffs for the United Kingdom the North-Eastern Electricity Board, which covers the area defined by Queen's University, charges 3·5lp per kilowatt hour to light engineering, compared with the charge of 4·72p in Northern Ireland. Commercial premises in the North-East are charged 3·4p per kilowatt hour compared with a charge of 4·49p for similar premises in Northern Ireland. The charge for heavy engineering in the North-East is 2·78p compared with 3·4p in Northern Ireland.
That means that a light engineering firm in Northern Ireland pays 34 per cent. more per kilowatt hour of electricity than a similar firm in the North-East of England; commercial premises in Northern Ireland pay 32 per cent. more and heavy industry pays 23 per cent. more. Is it any wonder that ICI, Courtualds and the other companies mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield have decided to cease operations in Northern Ireland?
Courtaulds and ICI are heavy users of electricity, and if they were faced with difficulties in their United Kingdom operations and had to look for places to make cuts they would obviously cut in the area where electricity charges were heaviest. That is as much of a reason for the closures in Carrickfergus as any other that I can think of.
The Minister may well dispute those figures, but they were supplied by the Library, and I have to accept them. When the Prime Minister spoke about bringing
tariffs more closely into line with those in England and Wales",
I hope that she meant to bring them into line with a comparable area of England and Wales, and that is the North-East. That area—perhaps its electricity board

acknowledges the problems that exist in that also deprived area—has one of the lowest tariffs in the whole Kingdom. The tariff is not the lowest, because other areas have even lower tariffs, but we are prepared to settle for the tariffs that exist in the North-East.
I do not know the domestic tariffs. In Northern Ireland domestic consumers pay over 20 per cent. more than the average. If that is the figure for the average, how much more are they paying than the lowest domestic consumer in Great Britain? One can imagine a figure of 40 per cent. or more. So when the Prime Minister talks about bringing the figures"more closely into line" she should equate like with like, and the tariffs in the North-East are the most appropriate for Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister went on to say
and to keep them there".
I acknowledge the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Mansfield and his colleagues to grapple with this problem in the past. To get £250 million at a time of economic difficulty out of the Exchequer, and another £100 million in additional moneys to help stabilise prices, was a massive achievement. But all that they did was to stabilise the prices at the variations that I mentioned. They pegged the prices and, unfortunately, had to impose that disadvantage on the various groups that I had listed.
I hope that when the Government decide what action to take they will take guidance from another document, which no doubt is covered with dust in the Department of Commerce and has not been looked at for a long time because it might be a source of embarrassment. The document was published in September 1978 by the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which three years ago said what I am saying tonight. It is worth putting it on the record. It said that
we question whether it is realistic to expect an entirely separate and self-contained electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland to be able to provide electricity at charges and at a standard of service which match those prevailing in Great Britain. Since costs, relative to Great Britain, are of great importance to the economic viability of the Province, the Council is led to the conclusion that the interests of Northern Ireland might be well served by some form of amalgamation between the electricity supply industry in the Province and the main body of the industry in Great Britain. We are of the view that in this way the Northern Ireland consumer could be serviced to the standard enjoyed by the consumer in other parts of the United Kingdom, and at an approximately equivalent charge.
The council went on to refer to the Plowden committee, which had considered the problem shortly before. It said:
We consider that it is relevant to our advocacy of some form of integration with the electricity industry on the mainland that the Plowden committee considered the case for a separate Electricity Board for Wales, but concluded that separation of the industry in Wales from the main body of the industry would be decidedly detrimental to the interests of Welsh consumers. Northern Ireland is in many respects less favourably circumstanced than Wales, and by inference is even less well equipped to sustain separate electricity supply arrangements.
The Minister should take out that report, brush off the dust and read it carefully, because I believe that it shows the way.
The report even dealt with one matter in the Prime Minister's statement that worried me. It concerns the avoidance of recurring subsidies and having to read year after year in an Appropriation order
for expenditure by The Department of Commerce on a subsidy to electricity tariffs
of several million pounds, making us look as though we are standing with the begging bowl in our hands year after year asking for what we believe is our right.
The council considered all these matters. It considered how to avoid the problem, because it does not happen anywhere else. When British Ley land properly receives hundreds of millions of pounds, the sum does not go against an account for the area where British Leyland factories are located. The same is true of other regions. I should be glad to know whether any region of the United Kingdom has a separate account, and whether the fact that it received more than other regions is held against it.
I hope that by speaking so forcefully about this matter 1 have not appeared too churlish. I welcome and accept what the Prime Minister said. The reason why I feel so strongly is that 1 have been arguing what the right hon. Lady said for seven years. I am sorry that some of our Ministers did not accept it a little sooner because we might have seen the benefits a bit sooner, if they had. We might not have had unemployment figures quite as bad as those to which the right hon. Member for Mansfield referred.
Let us hope that what I interpret from this statement is what we shall see. Let us hope that we do not have the chairman of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service appearing again on television saying that he does not quite know what the Prime Minister meant, which is virtually what he said the day after, and that he does not know how this will be achieved. Of course, the explanation is that he is an electricity Sinn Feiner. He has a vested interest in wanting to maintain a nice separate little electricity supply industry in the Province. Obviously he does not want to become submerged in an overall United Kingdom electricity supply industry. Someone should bring him in and tell him exactly how this will be done. We hope that it will take account of some of the recommendations on energy policy made by the Northern Ireland Economic Council in September 1978.
The Prime Minister also said:
Some people talk as though a supply of natural gas would solve virtually all our energy problems.
As one of the few people who have been arguing for natural gas ever the past seven years, I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Lady may have been taking a swipe at me in that regard. But I have never said that a supply of natural gas would solve all the energy problems of Northern Ireland. I simply said that we were as entitled to our share of natural gas in Northern Ireland as any other part of the United Kingdom, and I hold to that view.
To get natural gas, we were prepared to pay three or four times what was being paid by consumers in other parts of the United Kingdom. We were denying our own argument for parity, but, in order to make our case, we said that we would pay three or four times more. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), who represents the Social Democratic Party, might be interested to know that gas consumers in Northern Ireland pay more than 90p per therm. It makes us a little sick to hear all the soul-searching about having to pay 30p or 31p per therm, which is apparently what will have to be paid over here when the 15 per cent. increase is imposed. We already pay 90p per therm.

Mr. Fitt: It would cost the hon. Gentleman three and a half quid to do himself in!

Mr. McCusker: I do not know whether one therm of gas would be enough.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr, Fitt) obviously has worked it out.

Mr. McCusker: We never said that natural gas would solve all our energy problems. We simply did not want to see ourselves with our dependency all in one basket. We did not want to become totally dependent on electricity, and we still do not. We believe that we are entitled to the choice that other energy consumers in the United Kingdom have. We should like to see interconnectors both ways—north-south and east-west.
We believe that natural gas has a part to play in the Northern Ireland energy scene, and we are sure that the Prime Minister meant it when she said that this possibility was being looked at with an open mind. As other hon. Members have said, it is one of those areas of co-operation on the island of Ireland to which no one could object. If we stuck to those types of co-operation we should not be facing what we have had to endure from certain politicians in Northern Ireland over the past two or three weeks.
I want to touch briefly on the subject of education. As the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said, there are 1,084 unemployed teachers in Northern Ireland and we are now threatened with a further 250 redundancies this year. I was arguing for parity a few moments ago. If this was a case of parity I should have no argument to make. If it was because the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland was so much better than in other parts of the United Kingdom and we had to get rid of teachers to bring our ratio into parity I should not mind, but that is not the case.
In a recent survey by one of our local teachers' unions it was established that in a league table of 93 local authorities in Great Britain Northern Ireland finished in about seventy-fifth place in pupil-teacher ratios. The union went to Queen's University for co-operation with that survey, and it was advised that the North-East of England could be used as a comparable region to Northern Ireland. That region takes into account authorities such as Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Durham and Northumberland. The average primary pupil-teacher ratio was 21. In Northern Ireland it is 24. If we are comparing like with like, what justification can there be for declaring another 250 teachers redundant in the coming year?

Mr. John Patten: If the hon. Member is comparing like with like, will he make a similar comparison between pupil-teacher ratios in secondary schools in England and those in Northern Ireland, where they are better?

Mr. McCusker: I was coming to that point, which is made in the same survey. The union was honest in its endeavours to try to produce a case. It showed that, for example, in Northern Ireland the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools is 15·5. In Newcastle it is even less, at 14·7. In South Tyneside it is 15·5, and in North Tyneside 15·8. Other regions are slightly above that ratio. There is an advantage to Northern Ireland in the ratio in secondary schools, but that marginal advantage is not anything like the variation at primary level. Most teachers in Northern Ireland are capable of teaching in either primary or secondary schools—I have done so myself—because of the nature of their training. If we have a pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools of 23·8 against 21 in a comparable region in great Britain, we should be using those excess teachers to bring down that pupil-teacher ratio.
Few people argue that education and the advantages that it can confer on Northern Ireland is an area in which we should try to make savings. There are too many


unemployed school leavers still on the dole in Northern Ireland. There is a much higher proportion than in England. One of the reasons is their lack of education, skills and achievement when they were at school. If there is anything that the Government can do to improve that, they should do it. Now is not the time to have another 250 redundancies in the teaching profession in the Province.
There are no redundancies in Great Britain. In The Times Educational Supplement of 27 February the heading was:
No teacher has yet been sacked because of cuts.
There are substantial examples of cuts that have been avoided. The report states:
It looked for a long time as if Lincolnshire would be the first authority to make teachers compulsorily redundant … Until before Christmas, it looked as if compulsory redundancies were inevitable—then the authority had a change of heart and offered alternative employment to all those still without another job." 
The report went on to state that the county council agreed to meet extra travelling costs.
Hereford and Worcester county council was faced with the possibility of redundancies. It proposed to axe an extra 300 teachers. However,
after a protest campaign launched by teachers' unions with the support of parents they agreed not to go ahead with the cuts.
There was an instance of fixed-term contracts being negotiated in Oxfordshire, where 200 fixed-term contract teachers were involved. About a quarter of the teachers said that they wished to renew their contracts. All were eventually found posts. In Solihull, councillors tried to cut 153 teaching posts, but
a revolt by members of the Conservative controlling group eventually threw out the cuts package.
They were able to do that. Education and teachers are the responsibility of elected representatives in Great Britain. They are not the responsibility of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland, where the education and library boards cannot make those decisions. They are told by the Minister what to do, and because they are the Minister's lackeys they generally do what he tells them.
Teachers in Great Britain can use their muscle, their strength and their influence in political terms to get education committees to change their policies and use redeployment and so on. In Northern Ireland that does not occur. That is as good a reason as any, apart from the one that I have just given, for not declaring another 250 teachers redundant in the Province. I shall be interested in what the Minister, who, to judge from his intervention, is also concerned with parity, will say about that.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. As a West Country Member, I do not apologise for speaking in a Northern Ireland debate. Once one has tasted the friendship and kindness of Northern Ireland, one cannot forget it. One certainly cannot forget its problems and difficulties. If I can do anything to help, particularly in regard to agriculture and food production, I am determined to do it.
I take exception to what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said about Members of Parliament from England putting down questions. I put down a planted question the other day, and I counted it as a privilege. It is important that we in this part of the country, and

certainly in the South-West, where we have many problems similar to those in Northern Ireland, take an interest and are prepared to do something positive.
It does not do Northern Ireland much good—I must not say"to exaggerate"—to fail to take into account the present appalling world recession. Northern Ireland has had its problems for many years. They are bound to exist. The world recession is biting hard. It is nonsense to talk about Courtaulds and one or two other companies being in trouble only in Northern Ireland. Companies are in trouble elsewhere as well. It is no good the Government pumping in more and more aid when we simply cannot sell the goods that are produced.
That does not mean that I am not deeply concerned about Northern Ireland's problems, but we want to try to be responsible. With respect to him, the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was not being responsible in the present circumstances. His speech was almost like a party political broadcast, which does not help in these circumstances. Let us try to be a little more frank and realise the effects of the recession and the difficulties that Northern Ireland has had for many years.
I want to deal with the economy and unemployment in Northern Ireland, particularly the problems of agriculture and food production. A far higher proportion than in this country—13½ per cent.—of all those employed in Northern Ireland are employed in agriculture and food production. It is therefore an important industry. Unemployment is double the average United Kingdom level. In spite of all the inducements, many of which have been very attractive, the problem remains. One has to go to unusual lengths to maintain existing economic activity and employment in Northern Ireland. That must be so. We cannot allow the situation to go on and on. My right hon. and hon. Friends are doing what they can in a difficult world recession.
The difficulty of going to extreme lengths to maintain existing economic activity also applies to agriculture and food production. I have no hestitation in repeating my concern about the Government's change of policies on agriculture, and particularly about what they have done about milk aid. It is easy for me, perhaps, to go back into the past, but I had the privilege of being the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland and we introduced special aid and help for Northern Ireland. It was justified because of the circumstances and difficulties there.
Remoteness grants and special aid to the milk industry are necessary. The danger is that if the producers are not given the aid, once again they will go out of business. In addition, the merchants, agriculture engineers and all those involved in serving agriculture in Northern Ireland will also go out of business. That would increase unemployment still further.
I do not like criticising my right hon. Friends, but I do not believe that they have taken the matter seriously enough. Remoteness in agriculture is a real problem in Northern Ireland. The figures are appalling. They show that the net income of Northern Ireland farmers fell by 53 per cent. in money terms in 1979, and by 60 per cent. in 1980.
An excellent brief based on a survey commissioned by the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association gives comparative figures with Great Britain. The income of a specialist dairy farm in 1978–79 was minus 21 per cent. in England and minus 58 percent. in Northern Ireland. For


a farm dealing mainly in dairy produce it was minus 25 per cent. in England and minus 91 per cent. in Northern Ireland. For a pig and poultry farm it was minus 18 per cent. in England and minus 65 per cent. in Northern Ireland. The figures are appalling, and that situation cannot continue. Something must be done urgently.
I cannot understand why the Government have not taken the problem more seriously. After all, the stability of the Province is bound up in the farming industry. Most farmers are in the rural areas. If the Government want to maintain stability, particularly since many farms are family farms, they must act urgently. I fully understand the financial restrictions that must be imposed. However, the cake has not been divided fairly. The aid that has been removed has been given to the De Lorean plant and the Belfast shipyards. The remoteness grant and milk aid should be continued.
Production has not fallen much. That is due entirely to the fact that fanners are hoping for better times. They have cut expenditure on new buildings, machinery and maintenance. Because they are family farms they have the ability to draw in and take less money out of their enterprises. The borrowings for agriculture in Northern Ireland are appalling—up to £180 million. An additional £38 million was borrowed last year. That cannot continue. Already banks are beginning to put on the squeeze, and that will have terrible consequences for the future. It is vital that steps are taken quickly to improve profitability and to restore confidence. That means doing something about milk aid and other remoteness grants.
I have been told that Northern Ireland dairy farmers may export milk to Lancashire and Scotland. I do not blame them one little bit. Good luck to them. I hope that they will do it, because the Government will then have to take steps quickly because British dairy farmers will be on their tail. There is no question but that that will happen. Northern Ireland dairy fanners should have the right to export their milk. They export pigmeat, beef and other items to Britain, so why not milk? We shall watch the reaction from British dairy farmers if that happens. It will

be interesting to see what happens. There will be a terrible row. Something must be done. About £11 million is needed for milk aid to safeguard the industry.
Northern Ireland is not alone in its difficulties and its remoteness. What about Italy? Italians receive special aid because of their position in the Community. The Government could call on the Community to help to deal with the problems in Northern Ireland in the same way as it helps Italy. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will now listen to me even more carefully. A price review is due in Brussels, which will affect farmers not only in Britain but in Northern Ireland. The current proposals are inadequate to deal with the position because of the minus 25 per cent. to minus 30 per cent. fall in incomes in Britain, let alone what is happening in Northern Ireland. A proposal for only a 7–5 per cent. average increase in prices will lead to a fall in production. There will then be a scream about the necessity to increase home production of food. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support: the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food both in Brussels and in the Cabinet to ensure a proper return that will go some way towards covering expenses and the loss of income for British and Northern Ireland farmers.
When I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office I insisted on going to Brussels myself. That should happen now. It would restore the confidence of farmers in Northern Ireland if, occasionally, the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland agriculture went to Brussels to put the peculiar case of Northern Ireland—its remoteness, its difficulties, and its similarity to the situation in Italy. I did that. It would help confidence in Northern Ireland. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would know that someone was behind him pressing strongly for action to deal with the peculiar problems of Northern Ireland.
The problems should be dealt with. It is a pity that they have not been dealt with before. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be impressed by the need for action to be taken quickly.

10 pm

Mr. Wm. Ross: The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made a long and interesting speech, in which he referred to a number of problems that have arisen in Northern Ireland over publicity seekers in the past few weeks. He detailed the financial and economic measures taken by the Labour Government. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman forgot the most important event to take place during that time to cool tempers in Northern Ireland. It was a constitutional advance in respect of full representation in this place. That is the sort of measure that above all others will stop the publicity-seeking activities that we have seen recently.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: How many more seats does the hon. Gentleman want to give to Ulster?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not asking for additional seats. He knows the other measures that we are seeking. We have stood for those issues at election after election.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield drew attention to unemployment, housing problems and the difficulties of the textile industry, as well as many other issues. He erected a series of signposts that intrigued me. I am tempted to go down many roads this evening but, unfortunately, time does not permit me to do so. I shall concentrate my remarks on the subject that I feel rather more concerned about than most in the Northern Ireland context—namely, agriculture. If much of what I have to say this evening sounds rather like a repeat of what I have been saying over the past year, that is because circumstances have not changed very much over the past year.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) drew attention to a report commissioned by the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association. On page 2 it states:
If one was setting out from scratch today, under EEC conditions, to apportion UK agricultural enterprises to the most suitable areas, Northern Ireland would not be a priority area for intensive livestock production. Such enterprises would be sighted close to the main areas of grain production in Britain".
I suggest that very few persons would disagree with that.
On page 3 the report states:
Until the United Kingdom joined the Community in 1973 the disadvantage of Northern Ireland's 'remoteness' and small sized holdings was overcome by large scale imports of feed grains from North America. In fact historically the intensive pig and poultry industries were built on imported North American grain. Under the UK minimum import price scheme, operating for cereals up until EEC entry, imported grain could be landed in Northern Ireland at a competitive price with home grown and imported supplies in Great Britain. As the major part of the resultant eggs, dairy products, pigmeat and poultry meat had to find a market in Great Britain, this led to the development of highly efficient processing and marketing facilities in the Province. In addition a modern highly efficient feed industry was developed to process imported feed grains and proteins into compound animal feedingstuffs".
On page 4 of the report there is a table which provides some of the Northern Ireland agricultural census figures. The figures indicate that in June 1973 there were 112,000 pigs in the breeding herd. In December 1980 there were 65,000, the smallest herd for 25 years. The total number of pigs in 1973 was slightly over 1 million. There are only 654,000 now. The number of laying birds decreased from 7,250,000 to 4,750,000. The total cattle herd decreased from 1,500,000 to 1,390,000.
Some may think it churlish of me to point out that the decrease and the changes referred to earlier in the report arose during the period in which we have been a member of the EEC. We cannot ignore the effect that our membership is having on farms and farm production in Northern Ireland.
Although I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report, I have heard that Mr. O'Kennedy stated that the EEC was against the intensive farm. Generally speaking, the intensive farm in Northern Ireland is a highly sophisticated, intensive pig or poultry enterprise. Under EEC rules, unless a considerable proportion of the feed for the animals is produced on the holding, no grant will be paid. That alone means that at the end of the day the production from such enterprises in Northern Ireland must fall through lack of investment to the point where it matches what can be sold in the island of Ireland. Unless those circumstances can be circumvented or changed, there is no hope of holding, never mind raising, poultry and pig products on Northern Ireland farms. Decline is almost inevitable. If there is to be a future for those farms to the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole, means must be found to enable production to increase.
That brings me immediately to the nonsense involved in the structural scheme proposed for Northern Ireland agriculture. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food managed to obtain the money, but some of the money is involved in the structural measures. It was originally intended to improve the marketing and processing of eggs, poultry meat, cereals and cattle feed. I believe that all that is now left is something for grain handling. What need is there for that provision in the structure that I have outlined? There will be no grain imports in Northern Ireland. They are far too costly. It is a hollow victory.
The larger amount of money in the package is supposed to be for development in the less-favoured areas. Those areas need intensive poultry or pig production in order to raise the standard of living of the present number of farmers, or the number must fall drastically. Failing that, the farmers will return to being graziers—there will be nothing but dog-and-stick farming on the uplands. That will be an inevitable consequence of EEC policies. What appears to be a victory is nothing of the sort. The increased grants will be available only over a narrow sector of agricultural production.
In beef we have the continuing problem of the need to extend the less-favoured areas. It has been made clear that there will be no extension this year or in the next financial year if it can be avoided. The Government have given no undertaking that there will be an extension. Without it, the beef herd will continue to decline. Those who depend on beef will experience increasing hardship.
There is also something badly wrong in the milk sector. What I am about to say may seem strange and hard. We have lost milk aid. That money was needed and, on the whole, was wisely spent. Throughout the United Kingdom the Government set the price. In Northern Ireland we have an added disadvantage. Only 19 per cent. of our total milk sales go to the liquid market, where the real money is. At present we have the Binder-Hamlyn inquiry into the margins at each point from production to the pint on the doorstep. I suggest to the Government that we should perhaps set the bounds of that inquiry rather wider.
Something was brought to my attention recently which whetted my appetite, so I did a little digging. It was an


article in the current issue of the Livestock Farming magazine. It concerned imports into Northern Ireland of liquid milk from Donegal, mainly to the Leckpatrick creamery just outside my constituency. The article states:
The stunning fact to emerge from the inquiry is that Leckpatrick has been paying between 58p and 60p per gallon for Irish Republic milk at a time when Northern Ireland producers were getting a mere 43p to 46p a gallon from the MMB.
In other words, Northern Ireland producers were receiving 10p per gallon less even when allowance is made for the differing value of the punt.
I therefore dug a little deeper. I looked up the facts and figures for the EEC dairy industry to see what were the percentages for liquid sales in other EEC countries. The figures were most interesting. They were: Germany 10 per cent., France 10 percent., Italy 23 percent., Netherlands 6 per cent., Belgium 18 per cent., Luxembourg 14 per cent., United Kingdom 48 per cent., Denmark 7 per cent. and the Irish Republic 10 per cent. In other words, even with 19 per cent. liquid sales, Northern Ireland is far ahead of most EEC countries.
What is wrong? Why are we getting so much less money than anybody else? Recently, the price per litre in Northern Ireland was about 12¾p, while in Scotland it was l5½p. Last year, the Northern Ireland price was about 50p per gallon for milk from the farm. The Republic of Ireland last September managed to pay between 50p and 56p per gallon. It is interesting that that 50p to 56p per gallon, depending on the creamery to which the milk went, was not for all milk but was for manufacturing milk. I think that this aspect has not been properly understood in the past. I am extremely curious to know why the dairy industry in the Republic of Ireland, which sells less on the liquid market than we do, is apparently doing very well, expanding production and making plenty of money out of it, while the Northern Ireland milk industry is sliding steadily downhill.
It is even more curious when one considers the winter and summer balance in the two parts of Ireland. In Northern Ireland it is 55 per cent. for the summer and 45 per cent. for the winter. The equipment in the dairies must therefore be operating at much the same level throughout the year, which is bound to make economic good sense. In the Republic, the figures are 77·9 per cent. for the six summer months and 22·1 per cent. for the winter months. The trouble that that causes to the dairy industry in the Republic, which is being successfully overcome, must be staggering.
Northern Ireland sells only 19 per cent. of its milk on the liquid market as compared with 50 per cent. in Great Britain. Yet, although Great Britain has this enormous price advantage in the amount of milk sold on the liquid market, it is able to pay only 6p per gallon more than the Northern Ireland price. I suggest, therefore, that if somebody in Northern Ireland is doing a lousy job compared with the Republic, a great many people in Great Britain are doing an equally lousy job for the farmer compared with Northern Ireland.
We should all look rather more deeply at milk marketing. 1 do not know what is going on, but I feel that something is badly wrong. Savings could certainly be made. Such savings must be sought, because if Northern Ireland milk production is to exist in the EEC it must match its competitors, and up to now it is not doing so.
There must be something wrong in the marketing of milk, not in milk production, because Northern Ireland's milk production is as efficient as anyone else's.
I turn to a matter relating to the drainage division of the Department of Agriculture. That division has served Northern Ireland well. It has done a tremendous job on many rivers and streams throughout Northern Ireland. I compliment the division on its work, at least as a farmer, but not as an angler.
That section of the Department of Agriculture will shortly undergo considerable change, which will entail cutting the number of drainage offices in Northern Ireland to three. I am extremely concerned, because it appears that the one in my constituency, in Coleraine, which deals with the northern half of Northern Ireland drainage, will be chopped. If that happens, I fear that my constituents and others will find themselves in great difficulty if something goes wrong. I make a special plea that this matter be looked at with great care. I urge that the divisional office in Coleraine be retained.
I leave agriculture for a moment and turn to the Department of the Environment. One could make many speeches about the DoE on a number of subjects. One matter concerns me greatly, and I am sure that it will concern my right hon. and hon. Friends when they hear about it. It relates to the provision of mains water in the rural areas of Northern Ireland.
In my constituency I have a continuing problem in an area called the Highmoor near Eglinton. Last year, the Minister told me that a scheme to supply water to that area, by changing the cost yardsticks, had finally managed to get just inside the cost yardstick. Now, I am told that in June 1980 the headquarters issued a directive that from October 1980
the unit allowance for farmland acreage must be excluded from all schemes coming forward for approval. The estimate for this scheme was reviewed when the draft programme for the 1981–82 financial year was being compiled. The results indicated that without the allowance for farmland acreage this scheme would not be viable, and therefore could not be included in the draft programme.
I am sure that all hon. Members from Northern Ireland representing rural constituencies know of many such schemes that have only just crept in by the skin of their teeth. Now, instead of being borderline cases, they are definitely on the wrong side and have no chance whatever of being included. I ask the Minister responsible to take a hard look at this and to restore the farmland acreage allowance, because it is very much needed.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is not my intention to detain the House for long. I have listened carefully to the debate, to the complaints that have been made and to the points that have been raised.
As I see the issue, whether it is termed"parity" or otherwise, it appears that the people of the Six Counties want some considerable subsidy in respect of energy prices. That is coupled with the usual complaints which one would get in any debate on a particular Department.
However, on this occasion more than a dozen Departments are concerned. Therefore, we have had something in the nature of a bitty debate, which followed from the transfer of power from Stormont to the United Kingdom and the small amout of time allocated in this House to discuss these matters.
The point I want to make to the House, especially to my Front Bench, is that I believe that we should be thinking in terms of redirecting the whole of our economic policy. The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) spoke about the remoteness grants. Other Members have discussed the problem of distance of much of the Six Counties from mainland Britain. That has been used as an argument for improving the subsidies and help to the inhabitants.
I believe that we are looking at the problem from the wrong direction. Instead of looking from Westminster across the Irish Sea to the Six Counties we should be encouraging the Ulster people and the people of the Republic of Ireland to regard the economy of the island as one. Instead of regarding the Six Counties as an appendage of the United Kingdom's economy, we should encourage the Irish to be thinking in terms of one economy for the whole of the island of Ireland. In that way we would ensure that the totality of economic activity within the island could be considered as one. Schemes such as that discussed by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) to endeavour to get interest from the whole of Ireland in the gas pipeline from the South would go forward. Any surplus electricity generating capacity in the North should be exported to the South.
One of the most regrettable things about the present Government, as it was about the Labour Government, is that they are not prepared to take on the terrorists from both sides to ensure the maintenance of the connector links between the Six Counties and the Republic. That would have been a most positive co-operation which would have demonstrated links of that kind powerfully and forcefully to all the people of Ireland. The more we consider that, the better it will be.
On energy and especially electricity there could be a mutuality of interest which would in future prevent the Six Counties from appearing to have a begging bowl always held out to the United Kingdom. The totality of the examination of the institutions, which is still supposed to be continuing, despite the campaign of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—from which I noted that the Prime Minister did not withdraw in her statement made in the Six Counties over the weekend—should include the economic institutions and organisations. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has successfully applied his suggestion of a common agricultural policy on the sale of milk within Ireland. There are also questions of textiles, industrial policy, regional policies, communications and tourism. There is every need for the island to be treated as one and for a degree of co-operation to enable a merging of identity of economies between the two parts of Ireland. That would be the most powerful and sensible step to be taken to improve the economic position of those living in the Six Counties.

Mr. McCusker: The bulk of industrial relations legislation that has been passed in Dublin is very different from that of the United Kingdom and would prevent what the hon. Gentleman has been describing from happening. The decision of the Republic to join the European monetary system, which leaves its punt at 75p, would also be a disincentive to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. McNamara: I do not think that it would because, if it were possible to create a common economic region,

that would solve one of the major problems facing the economy of Northern Ireland—the high value of the pound. Northern Ireland's exports, as is the case on the mainland, have been affected by the high value of sterling, and that has caused a great deal of de-industrialisation. If there were an alignment of currencies with an Ulster punt, or some such agreement with the Republic, that would be of advantage to both sides of the border.
I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the differences in industrial policy and legislation and the corpus of law that exists. Unfortunately, I was not around at the time, but if I had been and had been able to influence matters there never would have been that difference in law. Some of those problems can be overcome. It is significant that there is an Irish Congress of Trade Unions which can work effectively throughout the island of Ireland while recognising the special position of the Six Counties.
I make one point to my Front Bench. If we as a party are not to be dragged down the integrationist road, we must look carefully not only at the political institutions, but at the economic institutions and organisations. The best thing we could do to prevent the drift down that road would be to attempt to begin treating the island of Ireland as one economic unit, not as one unit of 26 counties and one unit that is an appendage of the United Kingdom. If our economy catches a cold, it gets pneumonia, and when we get pneumonia, as now, the illness it is suffering from is terminal.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: I am aware that time is running short and that more right hon. and hon. Members are hoping to speak in the debate.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) for his reference to me as the Social Democratic spokesman and for the valuable information that he imparted to me about the price per therm of gas. The hon. Member rightly appreciated that I am sadly in need of education in these matters. I make no apology, however, for intervening in the debate as a Social Democratic spokesman.
The House will appreciate that I am feeling my way in somewhat unfamiliar territory and also that because time is running short, but perhaps more significantly because other right hon. and hon. Members have covered so much of the ground, it will be unnecessary for me to repeat what has already been said. Rather I shall concentrate on fairly general remarks about Northern Ireland economic and industrial affairs.
Let me move at once to one aspect of the industrial position there that deeply concerns me—the textile industry. The multi-fibre arrangement is not as firmly drawn as it should be and does not go far enough. The Minister for Trade said last month, I think in Manchester, that the problem of cheap textile imports was being overstated. Few people in the textile industry in the United Kingdom, and least of all in Northern Ireland, would agree with the Minister. Many closures which are now taking place and which have been taking place for some time in Northern Ireland textiles, are those of first-class, efficient firms with modern machinery and plant. Other equally efficient firms are in dire straits.
There is dumping of end-of-run surpluses by American producers. There is covert entry into the EEC, mostly through the back door into West Germany, of cheap


clothing from East Europe. There is the massive inflow of cheap textiles from the Third world and the Far East. I do not think that the Government, or, for that matter, the Commission, have come anywhere near to the policies that are required if Northern Ireland's textile industry, on which so much employment depends and in which so much employment has already been lost, is to weather its present difficulties.
I cannot presume on the time of the House to go into these matters in much detail. I would, however, lay down two principles for a start. First, the main aim of Community policy should be justice for member States, with any market growth primarily for the benefit of the EEC's own textile industries. Secondly, the growth rate in textile imports into the Community should be closely related to market growth and shared equally between low-cost and industrialised countries. None of us wishes to restrict the growth of Third world economies. Indeed, we must encourage growth vigorously for every practical and moral reason. I wish the Third world to have an equitable share of imports into the EEC. From whatever source imports of textiles come, however, we cannot turn a blind eye to the destruction of important industrial assets in Northern Ireland at a time when we are having to agree to the huge expenditure set out in this Appropriation order.
The history of decline of industry in Northern Ireland goes back a long time. I feel, however, that neither this Government nor, indeed, the Labour Government can escape responsibility for the effects of their policies on the majority of the population in the Province. Industrial closures, declining output and an increasing level of unemployment are, unhappily, prevalent throughout the United Kingdom. What seems particularly distinctive about so much of life in Northern Irland is the evident real poverty and social deprivation of a high proportion of the population. This widespread poverty has been greatly worsened recently by the Government's indiscriminate cuts in public expenditure.
A number of hon. Members have already referred to the bad housing. This is a blot not only on the present Government but on the previous Government, of which I was a supporter in the past. It is a blot on both sides of the House that the housing situation should have been allowed to continue to its present state of dilapidation. All that adds greatly to the overall picture of family poverty.
There are shamefully low family incomes for so many in the Province. There are also low wage levels which, in many people in cases, fell below the recognised poverty line and produce the absurdity of many people in full-time employment having to claim FIS. On top of that are the inflated prices for electricity and other forms of energy. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Government on their belated conversion to the obvious and their action, which should have been taken a long time ago.
In the long run, only industrial investment and regeneration can produce the revival of economic prosperity. Why is it that the Government, faced with a decaying social infrastructure, of which bad housing is only one aspect, and massive unemployment, which costs so much in social benefit, do so little by way of fundamental, long-term investment in a programme of public works? Surely now is the time to make the construction industry a prime channel of investment and area of recovery, not only to raise living standards to a more acceptable level but to construct vital new

developments in transport and communications throughout Northern Ireland, together with other public services that are badly needed for industrial and social change.
I turn to massive Government subventions of a new enterprise in the Province. Much has been said about De Lorean. If it will contribute to industrial recovery and reduce unemployment, no one will begrudge a penny of Government aid. Will the Minister of State give us a firm assurance that De Lorean will have a profitable world market and will prove a commercially succesful venture?
Much has also been said about Harland and Wolff, though not tonight. The bareness of its order book in relation to its huge capacity is a depressing picture, which is hardly alleviated by the nature of recent contracts. Could not the situation be improved by bringing some naval shipbuilding into the yard? In last year's Appropriation order debate, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) raised that matter and the possibility of diverting some nuclear submarine construction to Harland and Wolff. We have to maintain our heavy investment in the company, and such orders would clearly infuse new hope into the yard and bring ancillary orders at the same time.
Other hon. Members wish to speak, and I am grateful to the House for having listened to my contribution, which is in a sense a maiden speech in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In a few intervening moments, I can do little more than pay the customary tribute to a maiden speaker. The debate has been remarkable for two innovations—the appearance of one party, which my hon. Friends and I welcome, since anything that brings more Great Britain Members to participate in the affairs of Northern Ireland and in debates such as this is to be welcomed, and the absence of a party because it has formally, and in the most express manner, renounced Parliament.
It is perfectly possible to have reservations and anxieties about what passed or might have passed between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic in Dublin at the end of last year. But nothing can go so directly to destroy the Union as for a party and anyone purporting to represent the people of Northern Ireland to repudiate Parliament, which, after all, is the essence of the Union. That is the true reason for the absence which has been noted.
I have time for only one other observation, which perhaps I illustrate in my own person. This is one of the Northern Ireland Supply days. The House, in its wisdom, has decided that the Supply procedure of this House needs a radical reconsideration. I believe that those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in these debates, as Northern Ireland Members do eagerly as an opportunity to speak on behalf of their Province and their constituents, recognise that these Appropriation debates are no substitute for our ability to participate, which we do not have at present, in the full Supply procedure of this House.
We have neither the opportunity which Consolidation Fund Bills provide to focus the attention of a Minister on successive items, be they small or great, and obtain a reply from him directly there and then, nor the opportunity to participate in the major debates of policy upon Supply in which the position of Northern Ireland as a part of the


United Kingdom and the effect of United Kingdom policies upon Northern Ireland could be explored in their proper context.
The ultimate reason for that is that, in 1972–73, when much else was altered, the separate Consolidation Fund for Northern Ireland was left intact. Therefore, we have to so the best we can, and it is not very satisfactory either to the House or to Northern Ireland Members with this double and overlapping Supply procedure which we have observed tonight.
Hon. Members in this debate have, amongst other points, ventilated matters which in the rest of the Kingdom would be for local government. It was never the intention of this House or of any Government that Northern Ireland should be deprived of local government. It was simply the ironical accident that, just before the abolition of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland, the powers of local government had been absorbed and amalgamated into that shortly doomed institution, and we are suffering in part in these debates from the fact that matters which ought to be dealt with and settled by elected representatives on the spot can only be brought to Ministers here.
I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friends, because notice was given that we should be seeking to raise the question of rating this evening. For that and for the future of rating in Northern Ireland, which clearly is essentially linked with the institution of local government, there is now no time. Therefore, I content myself with saying that if the Government are, as we understand they are, to bring forward proposals for a radically different rating system in Northern Ireland, we ask them to put forward those proposals for discussion first in as tentative a form as possible before we see them as proposals for a draft order or even a draft order. This is a vital matter for the possibility of the regrowth of local government and local responsibility in Northern Ireland, and we should have the opportunity of full advance debate upon that subject.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Once again, I shall have to cut my remarks short. Although we are for ever experimenting—and, to the credit of the Government, they have been experimenting with the best will in the world in these debates—I do not think that we have it quite right yet. Perhaps we shall look at it again.
The debate has centred, rightly, on the unemployment and deprivation in Northern Ireland and, in Opposition speeches, on the role that Government policies have played in exacerbating the already serious situation in the Province. We find no comfort in the order. Many hon. Members have said that the money involved is totally inadequate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) struck the right note when he said that the order was evidence of the Government's failure to come to terms with Northern Ireland's social and economic problems. I go further. It is evidence that since the Government came to office the problems have become worse as a result of their policies.
The hon. Members for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) must have regretted going through the Lobby that spring evening in 1979 to bring about the fall of the Labour Government. With every

speech they make, that is indelibly impressed upon us. It would be churlish not to welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). He has probably drawn the short straw within his alliance—or whatever it is called—because he might believe that debates on Northern Ireland always take place at a reasonable hour. It might not be too late for him to get out of his commitment, so I shall tell him that this is an early hour. Often we are here at 4 am or 5 am. We shall welcome him then and hope that he sustains his interest in Northern Ireland during those long debates.
I do not knock the hon. Member for Belfast, West, because I love him like a brother. He said that he had not spoken much about agriculture. His speech today was welcome. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) often refers to agriculture and the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) takes a regular part in agriculture debates, as does the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). In the past 18 months I have raised the questions of the less favoured areas, milk, feedingstuffs, pigs and so on. I shall not dwell on those issues, but I hope that the Minister will say something about the £34 million EEC aid. Has it been agreed? The Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland agriculture met the Ulster farmers about seven weeks ago. We have heard nothing about that. It is about time that the Secretary of State made a clear commitment.
We hope that the Prime Minister's decision in principle on energy is the first step back on the road to an energy commission to advise in the future. What has happened to our suggestion of a public body to review energy pricing in the Province? Energy is not the only problem with which the Northern Ireland people have to cope. The adverse exchange rate, high interest rates and crippling levels of national insurance contributions cause problems for people in the rest of the United Kingdom, but for Northern Ireland the burden is even more enormous.
The CBI report published in January confirmed what everybody else had been saying and thinking about the economic situation for some time. It states that demand for goods continues to contract, that firms are not optimistic about retaining market shares in the longer term and that most investment plans appear to have been shelved. Has the Minister read that report? I am sure that he has. Will he tell us his views when he replies?
It is good to see the Secretary of State in the Chamber. What has he said to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about tomorrow's Budget? Without giving anything away, perhaps he will say what he has done to persuade the Chancellor to lower interest rates and to move the albatross around the neck of Northern Ireland industry. We shall see the results tomorrow.
I turn to Class II, Vote 4. I am sorry that the Government are intent on continuing their policy of false economy for the industrial training boards. In the past, the boards have made an invaluable contribution towards improving the skills of the work force in Northern Ireland. I am looking at the Under-Secretary because he is sitting closest to the Minister who is to reply and will, no doubt, continue to nudge him when necessary. A cut of £400,000 in the budget of the training boards will be counter-productive. We have said that before. I am sure that the Minister will take note of that. It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not concern herself with that problem when


she made her fleeting visit to the Province last week. She should have spoken about not only energy but the important issues that face Northern Ireland industry.
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West in that I view with total dismay the £157,000 reduction in the provision for the rehabilitation and employment of disabled persons. It is incredible that in this International Year of Disabled People the Government are acting in such a niggardly manner. The money that will be saved will pay for the Government's mistakes by buttressing the short-time working position—which makes the jigging of the funds ever more despicable. Perhaps I should not be so shocked. I went through the shock barrier many months ago in relation to the Government's actions in Northern Ireland. I hope that one day the Secretary of State will feel ashamed, or, if he does not feel it, simply look as t hough he is ashamed, of some of his actions. Hope springs eternal.
No less contemptible is the Government's treatment of the education sector in Northern Ireland, especially of the teaching staff. That subject was touched on by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I hope that the Government will be forthcoming tonight and say what they intend to do. The Under-Secretary is concerned with that aspect. The hon. Member for Armagh said that the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland primary schools is worse than in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
The Under-Secretary appeared to be proud of that, despite the fact that Northern Ireland is the most deprived region He thought that the fact that some areas of Britain had a good teacher-pupil ratio was something of which to be proud. The fact is that all——I stress"all"—local education authorities in England have a better staffing ratio in primary schools than do authorities in Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary referred to secondary schools, but I am talking about all the primary schools in the remainder of the United Kingdom. If the Northern Ireland ratio were reduced to the English ratio of 22·7 per cent., nearly 400 more teachers would be employed in the Province.
At the very time when the Minister should consider ways to employ more teaching staff, he is taking a peremptory decision without consulting the unions—which is disgraceful in itself—to reduce staffing levels. That action is even more worrying because 1,084 teachers were unemployed in December 1980—an increase of 39 per cent, on the figures for the previous year. Once again, a decision has been made on the ground of financial expediency with scant consideration for the effect it will have on the social fabric of society in Northern Ireland. Of the 250 jobs to be withdrawn, 150 will be in the Belfast area, an area with special problems that deserves special treatment. It seems that it will not get it from this Government. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the decision on cuts in teaching jobs and will have some regard for those in teacher-training colleges who will shortly be qualifying and will have no jobs for which to apply.
It seems from Class VIII that the Government have no intention of alleviating the problems of the school meals service.

Mr. Peter Mills: Mr. Peter Mills rose—

Mr. Pendry: No. It will be evident to the hon. Gentleman that I am galloping on. I moved from teachers to school meals without a break.
It appears that the Government have no intention of alleviating the school meals service crisis. Only last month the Department of Education and Science published a survey of the school meals service in England and Wales, It provides conclusive evidence that the take-up for school dinners declined by almost 30 per cent, in one year. What is the position in Northern Ireland? There can be no excuse in Northern Ireland, because the Department cannot hide behind local authorities. It is the direct arm of the Government that is stripping the school meals service. I should like to know about the take-up in Northern Ireland on the basis of the survey that has recently been undertaken in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Class IX, Vote 2, deals with the moneys allocated to health and the personal social services programme. Even though the sum allocated under this Vote constitutes more than half of the total Estimate, I still find it an inadequate sum. I might surprise the Minister by saying that, but I do not think that I shall surprise many people in Northern Ireland.
We are often told that the health boards in the Province are lucky to have escaped the full brunt of the public expenditure cutting axe. That is not so. Last autumn the health budget was lopped by over £10 million. I am sure that it is no coincidence that the same sum has reappeared in the order. I regard that as a confused and neglectful way of treating the welfare of the most deprived populace in Europe.
The gravity of the problems faced in Northern Ireland were revealed in the Baird committee's report, which was published on October 1980. The report on the high level of baby deaths in Northern Ireland illustrates well the needs that are not being met. A child born in Northern Ireland has a lower chance of reaching its first birthday than a child born anywhere else in the United Kingdom or in most other developed countries. In the Province, there are 17·2 deaths in the first year of life per 1,000 live births. In England and Wales the figure is 13·8. The report contained recommendations to improve the maternity services and made it clear that the social problems of Northern Ireland were interlinked. Only with full employment and adequate housing will there be any chance of ameliorating the serious situation.
We have to look long and hard at the order to find any evidence of the Government's good intentions to implement the Baird committee's suggestions. When the report was first published, the then Minister with responsibility for health, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), said:
No additional resources can be provided or earmarked for these purposes at this stage. There will, of course, be competition from other priorities for any additional resources.
What is more important than saving the lives of newborn babies? Everyone, particularly expectant mothers and mothers, will be interested to hear whether there are more urgent and significant calls on the Department's finances.
Class XI deals with the central management of the Civil Service. If transferring the central pay branch to the Department of the Civil Service improves the general treatment of civil servants in Northern Ireland, we welcome the change. Since we last debated an Appropriation order a number of changes have taken place, resulting in severe job losses in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, particularly in the industrial branch. With


so many problems in industry in Northern Ireland, I question the fact that the Civil Service cuts should begin with industrial civil servants.
I said that I should sit down at this time. I shall, therefore, say no more, except that I hope that the points I raise will be answered, although not necessarily tonight. I repeat that we should once more consider how we structure these short but important debates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): It may be convenient if before my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to this complicated and full debate I intervene briefly to attempt to deal with the points raised on education and the social services. I intend to deal with each in turn.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) galloped through his speech. In the short time available to me, I shall not be able to do complete justice to the points that he raised on education and social services. I shall write to him in greater detail as soon as possible.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who is greatly concerned about the three teacher-training colleges and awaits urgently the outcome of the consultation that my noble Friend Lord Elton is having with interested authorities. His remarks ranged widely over the whole issue of sectarian education, as he calls it. I listened carefully to his analysis. However familiar or unfamiliar we are with the education system in the Province, it must be clear to us all that it reflects the legitimate aspirations of parents. As in the past, children will most likely be educated according to the religious wishes of their parents.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As in Great Britain.

Mr. Patten: In that sense we are no different.
I am not pre-empting what my noble Friend will say, but teacher-training colleges have to an extent naturally reflected that desire. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that the Government are committed to imposing some form of educational apartheid. I refute utterly the suggestion that any child in the Province is denied education at any school by law. It ill behoves him to use such terminology. He rightly criticised the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—who is sadly absent from tonight's debate—for using such terminology.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman cannot compare the situation in Northern Ireland with that in Great Britain. I think that I am right in describing it as educational apartheid for children, from toddlers to 16-year olds, to be separated from boys and girls of a different religion. That cannot be accepted. If parents wish their children to receive religious education, they should do that quite separately. Taxpayers' money should not be used to maintain religious schools.

Mr. Patten: I can only reiterate that it is not imposed by law.
I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, which reflected to a great extent some of those contained in the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for South Armagh—

Mr. McCusker: The whole of Armagh.

Mr. Patten: I apologise to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). Clearly my pursuit of the teaching of geography in the University of Oxford for 10 years left me inadequately prepared to deal with that one of the Six Counties, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who is now no longer in the Chamber, endlessly described them.
Listening to the hon. Member for Armagh, I rather felt that, just as he was determined to get in his peroration about electricity and energy prices which he had clearly written before the Prime Minister made her most welcome statement in the Province last Thursday, he was also determined at all costs to get in the results of a very interesting survey on education and pupil-teacher ratios that he had recently read.
I can only say to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that the policy of my noble Friend Lord Elton—who, it must be remembered, was himself a school teacher—is to put the classroom first. While it is true that in primary education our pupil-teacher ratios are a little worse, in secondary education they are a little better than those on this side of the water. I do not believe that the reductions in teaching staff will do anything more than reflect the overall reduction in school rolls, which absolutely parallels the experience on this side of the water.
I should like to correct the hon. Member on one matter of fact, which I believe is indisputable. Not all of the reduction of 250 in teaching staff will be achieved by redundancy. A good deal of it will be achieved by natural wastage. That is similar to the experience of many county councils on this side of the water.
I turn briefly to the question of social services. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) raised the important issue of supplementary benefits and our expenditure on them. I appreciated what he said, but I remind him of the great benefits that the Province draws from its relationship in parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in these issues.
I also remind him that one may have all the benefits in the world, but if one cannot persuade people to take them up it is extremely difficult to put them to good use. I must tell the House that since November last year my Department has made great efforts to increase the uptake of benefits such as family income supplement, and we have already achieved a 10 per cent, increase in the number of people taking up that benefit.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's important announcement on electricity prices will have a very beneficial effect on the poorer community in particular.
An important point of detail was raised by the hon. Member for Down, North and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I am conscious that I have not been able to deal with anything like the substantial number of points that the hon. Member for Belfast, West raised in his long and interesting speech, and I apologise for that. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised the important matter of provision for the disabled, which of course includes the mentally handicapped as well as the physically disabled. I listened with great care and appreciated the obvious concern of all three hon. Members about the lack of certain services which they would like to see provided for people in those categories. Hard decisions have had to be taken by many boards. The eastern area board was particularly mentioned. The boards


were given broad options for the savings that they had to make in the past financial year. Within those savings, I think that it is right and proper for a Minister to leave decisions to the boards. Otherwise the whole process of government would quickly break down. I am sure that in their hearts, however much they support these individual services, hon. Members know that that is the correct course.
I remind the hon. Member for Down, North that the service to which he referred has not been completely abolished but simply reduced in its provision with regard to transport for the Gateway club.
From 1 April, area health boards will have some room for growth. We project about 1·5 per cent, in the coming financial year. It is at that stage that we may look to the restoration of some—I cannot make any promises about all—of the services to which right hon. and hon. Members have referred.
I conclude on this note, and I hope that it is a positive one. We cannot endlessly look to the Government. It is important that in the Province, just as much as on this side of the water, the voluntary sector, to which I pay my tribute, plays its full part in services such as this. I remind hon. Members that, just as the Government have isolated areas of particular and acute need in the Province, such as the Belfast areas of need, where we have lowered the pupil-teacher ratio to 19·1, so we have made such areas a priority for health and social services. I believe that the Government are responsive to the needs of the people of the Province.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): It is a strange sensation to follow one's ministerial colleague. As my hon. Friend the Under-secretary sits for Oxford and as I came from Cambridge, I hope that the sequence will be different in the Boat Race in a few weeks' time.
It will be impassible to deal with all the individual points that have been raised. I and my hon. Friends will attempt to deal by correspondence with those that are not answered tonight.
I formally extend by congratulations to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) on his new responsibilities. Perhaps many other hon. Members from more and more splinter parties will speak on Northern Ireland as the hon. Gentleman's former associates break up. However, the more people there are with a genuine interest in Northern Ireland, the better.
References have been made to certain absentees. I must strongly point out that in the absence of devolved government it is right and proper that the affairs of Northern Ireland should be debated in this House.
I shall try to deal with the main subjects that have arisen in the majority of speeches. First, I turn to the question of energy. This has crescendoed in my time into the most important demand from all quarters of industry. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said that he had argued this for seven years. I remind him that the Government have been in power for less than two years, and I have been in the Department of Commerce for about two months. We have responded to the strong points that have been put to us.
It was proper that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should have been the person to make the statement on energy in the former Parliament buildings.

Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, we have held down the differentials which we inherited. However, those differentials still place an unfair penalty on consumers. Therefore, the Prime Minister promised that these should move more closely in line.
Nevertheless, up to now there have been a hand-to-mouth existence and some doubts about the future as to which way tariffs would move. That was the importance of my right hon. Friend's second promise. First, she said that tariffs would move more closely in line, and secondly that the Government would keep them there.
I looked for greater enthusiasm than we received for that announcement. In tonight's debate, time has been spent in searching out detail instead of acknowledging the importance and firmness of the Prime Minister's commitment. Of course, there is a need for the way in which that commitment is to be fulfilled to be made public. So it will be. I have no doubt that when the Government reveal the details they will be generally welcomed and will be seen to be equitable in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Many hon. Members asked me about additional funds. It follows that if tariffs are to be brought more in line, additional funds will have to be made available. I have no doubt that when the House learns the details it will not be disappointed.
The question of Kinsale has been referred to. I have no need to repeat what I have said before on this subject. The Government certainly have an open mind on the matter. The question revolves around matters of timing, quantity and, most particularly, cost. We are closely in touch with the Dublin Government, and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that this is a proper matter for discussion between the Governments of the two countries. I agree with the hon. Member who pointed to the benefit that would flow from greater co-operation on energy matters and on economic matters generally.
I reply to the question of housing in the absence of the active participation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He wants me to take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Mansfield, who led for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the deplorable housing conditions in the Province, claiming that the Government were sitting back and that we were using the improvement in the period 1974–79 as an excuse for doing nothing. He said that we should be trying to match that improvement. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend is not the sort of man who sits back and does nothing. He does not think that matching the previous Government's performance on Belfast housing is sufficient. He has every intention of improving on that earlier period.
I turn next to the money that my hon. Friend is putting behind housing in the Province. In the current year, expenditure on renovation is higher in real terms than in 1974–79 and funds available for housing associations have risen from £4 million in 1979 to £12½ million in 1980–81. A significant announcement by my hon. Friend the Under-secretary today is designed to improve the state of housing in the private rented sector. It is a four-point package which has proposals to encourage the improvement and repair of 20,000 houses held under restricted tenancies, with rent increases in line with Housing Executive rents to enable landlords to maintain the regulated tenancy


houses in proper condition. There will be a tightening up of the regulations against landlords who fail to keep their houses properly repaired and higher levels of grant for house renovation. From that brief response to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield and others in the debate, it can be seen that the Government care deeply about housing conditions and are doing something constructive about them.

Mr. Fitt: When the 1978 rent order was going through the House, a special Committee consisting of all Northern Ireland Members met. Now, as the scope of the legislation is to be enlarged, will the Minister give an undertaking that another Committee will sit upstairs so that we go into the proposed changes in greater detail?

Mr. Butler: I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that my hon. Friend will write to him about the matter.
I wish to say something about another industry that was frequently mentioned—

Mr. Fitt: Textiles.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman takes the word out of my mouth. Throughout the United Kingdom, the textile industry has suffered severely in the present recession. The Government have been following two lines to help. The first is to operate the present multi-fibre arrangement as comprehensively and effectively as possible. It has been successful in holding down the level of imports from low-labour-cost countries, and we are pledged to seek a tough successor arrangement.
Secondly, more attention has been given in the past year or two to the area that suffers from low feedstock prices in America. The Government have taken a lead in stimulating the European Commission to urge upon the American Administration the need to examine these factors. Although we should hesitate to take all the credit for this, the Government and the House welcomed the steps that the Reagan Administration took in decontrolling oil prices.
It is not true that in textiles all is lost. It does not help to say, as I think the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) suggested, that within a few months there will be no textile industry in Northern Ireland. I know textile companies throughout the United Kingdom that are succeeding either because they have a special productor, more often, because they have first-class management and a highly co-operative work force.
I take just one example from Northern Ireland. I was fortunate enough on Friday, after a certain visit, to go down to Lisnaskea and to open an extension of what is probably the most modern spinning factory in the world. It is certainly one of the most advanced. The Tootal group made that investment of over £5 million in Northern Ireland knowing, first, that it could get the best encouragement and support from the Government but, secondly, that it had a first-class work force which had stood behind it in the past. It chose that site over any other in the United Kingdom and possibly any other in America or other places where it has plants now. That is the sort of encouragement that we need and the sort of example that wants to be spoken about outside the House to encourage others to do the same.
Agriculture is another area in which I have a special interest. Many hon. Members have contributed to our

debate. They included the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), with his double experience—a lifetime in agriculture and his time as a Minister in the Province. I welcomed his contribution particularly, but other contributions all pointed to the undoubted severe drop in farmers' net incomes in the Province. I do not believe that the figures misrepresent the position unduly.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Ulster Farmers' Union in January, and he is seriously considering the many representations that were made to him. He hopes to be able to say something about what assistance may be available as soon as he can.
The position of agriculture in Northern Ireland is fully taken into account when deliberations take place in the Common Market, in Brussels, as they have been and as they will continue as this year's price proposals are worked through. The Province has also benefited from decisions already taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, such as increases in the hill land compensatory allowances and the transitional steps in the sheepmeat regime, which should benefit sheep farmers in the coming year.
I have little time to deal with the other points regarding agriculture, but I can tell the House that, subject to final ratification and subject, indeed, to Italy withdrawing some opposition, there will be concrete measures which will be of benefit to the Province in the future arising out of the package recently discussed among the Agriculture Ministers.
I wish to spend the few minutes of time remaining to me on the question of industrial development. I wish to meet the charge that the Government are not properly accepting their responsibilities in regard to unemployment and to rebut absolutely charges of the kind made by the right hon. Member for Mansfield, speaking for the Opposition, that we have had no enthusiasm for attracting jobs into the country. I rebut that firmly. The right hon. Gentleman also made the point, as did others, that there was no extra provision in the Estimates which we are debating today. He will know very well that the autumn Supplementary Estimates which were the subject of the last debate were the vehicle for a significant shift of resources into our economic programmes in Northern Ireland, and that was approved by the House—I hope, enthusiastically.
The problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland is clearly of the greatest concern to us all. The truth is that the differential between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom has been high under Governments in the past, but if one goes, as I did recently, to Londonderry, where there is one in four people out of work, and one knows the situation in such places as Strabane, it must make one think very seriously.
We have in the Department of Commerce a concerted three-part strategy. The first part is the support and encouragement of estblished companies, but here I must say that it is no good pouring money into companies which have no future. Second, in support of that, the strategy is to stimulate small businesses, to which we attach special importance. But those two are not enough, and it is no good saying that we must concentrate our attention on supporting established industries. If we are in the future to overcome unemployment of the magnitude that it is in the Province, we need to attract jobs from outside. So the


third part of the strategy is to attract inward investment. We have been successful in this, and we shall continue to be successful in the future.
That strategy is supported by substantial funds, boosted by an injection of additional funds last summer and a reallocation of resources already available to Northern Ireland. The Department of Manpower Services, for which also I have direct responsibility, is putting further money, as the House knows, behind the short-time working scheme, which is necessary, and behind the youth opportunities programme, in which real work is being done to train and educate young people for a successful life in industry.
Most of this debate has understandably been devoted to special pleading by those with interests in their constituencies. Let me say in conclusion that not only do we have our programme concentrating on the problems of Northern Ireland but, of course, the Province stands to benefit as strongly as does the rest of the United Kingdom from the Government's economic policy, which is designed to build a sound industrial and commercial base to make our industry more competitive, through the reduction of inflation and giving every encouragement to the containment of costs. That is starting to succeed. That is why under this Conservative Government there is hope for Northern Ireland. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): To save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions to approve the statutory instruments—that is, items No. 3 and 4 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

EXPORT GUARANTEES

That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) (No. 3) Order 198 1, which was laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]

JUDGES

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1981 which was laid before this House on 16 February, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke]

Question agreed to.

Ministry of Defence (Employment Dispersal)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. John Wilkinson(Ruislip-Northwood): I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the important topic of the proposed transfer of 1,400 Ministry of Defence Civil Service jobs from the London area to Glasgow. There are three main reasons which could justify such a drastic move. The first would be if it would increase the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces, the second would be if it would increase the administrative efficiency of the Ministry of Defence and the third would be if it would eliminate waste and save money.
I believe that the proposed transfer fails on all three counts and should therefore be abandoned. On 29 January I gave notice of my interest in this matter in a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I claimed that the extra costs of the proposed move to the budget of the Defence Department would be £50 million. My right hon. Friend did not contradict that figure and accepted my argument that the move would mean some increase in public spending.
Such an increase is inappropriate at the present time, particularly for the Ministry of Defence and especially so since the Secretary of State for Defence believes strongly in cash limits for his Department. I can understand the strength of his belief on this point. The Prime Minister, in the exchange I have mentioned at Question Time, insisted
that we put in charge of those Departments people who insist on proper control of public spending and effective value for money."— [Official Report, 29 Jan 1981; Vol. 997, c.1070.]
Clearly, the new Secretary of State is just such a person. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) at the conclusion of the Secretary of State's statement on the Defence Estimates on 20 January 1981, my right hon. Friend said:
The cash limit system is absolutely fundamental. We must keep to cash limits. Unless we respect money as well as volume, we cannot conduct our affairs sensibly."— [Official Report, 20 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 159.] 
On 20 January 1981 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced savings in planned defence expenditure amounting to £200 million for the financial year 1981–82, including the postponement and cancellation of important equipment programmes for the Armed Forces, not least the deferment of a Royal Air Force order for the Jetstream 31 communications aircraft, currently being built by the Scottish division of British Aerospace Ltd. at Prestwick. If this aircraft were procured, as I hope it would be, by the Royal Air Force, it would come into service primarily in my constituency at RAF Northolt.
On the evening of 2 February 1981, Sir Frank Cooper, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, commented in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee— and I quote from The Daily Telegraph of 3 February:
We have got to have a much stronger cash control system than we have at present.
That is an understatement in view of his reported further admission, in his own words, that for 1980–81 there will be


a large overspend, wholly on procurement Votes, of over £250 million net.
The uninformed layman might presume, as the defence budget is severly constrained, with equipment suppliers sending their bills in early because of the recession and the Government being likely next year not to meet their Alliance commitment of a 3 per cent, increase in defence expenditure in real terms, that the Ministry of Defence would do everything possible to eliminate any wasteful expenditure planned by the Department for the future, so as to make the best use of limited financial resources, to meet the undeniably growing military threat.
Only the most avid student of"Yes, Minister" on television could see through the misty atmosphere, mixed motives and muddled thinking to the depressing reality behind the proposed transfer of 1,400 Civil Service jobs from the Ministry of Defence to Glasgow. It is actually a classic example of what the Americans would call pork barrel politics. The United Kingdom style is, of course, much less offensive, but it has, nevertheless, characterised the impoverishment of post-war Britain, mainly through the promotion of phoney—and I mean phoney—jobs at the taxpayers' expense in inappropriate places, usually known condescendingly by Whitehall as"the regions".
The public rationals for such schemes is usually social. At least, to his credit my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did not explicitly invoke this argument in his reply to the Adjournment debate on this very subject on 11 December 1979, but he made it by implication, because I feel that it is one of the strangest tasks for the Defence Department to pursue job creation rather than the security of the realm as a primary objective. However, the candour of my hon. Friend was revealed when he said in that debate:
We should also bear in mind that Hardman did not recommend the dispersal of any Ministry of Defence jobs to Glasgow.
In that debate my hon. Friend also described the sumptuous scale of the public works to be associated with the development of the St. Enoch site in central Glasgow. He said:
The building to house dispersed civil servants will be one of the most significant Government office projects in Scotland in recent years. It will be about the same size as New St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, and will form a key element in the major redevelopment of a crucial site in the centre of Glasgow. We think that this is also important. Any office building of this size would be a considerable undertaking. It is particularly desirable that this scheme should be planned and designed to a quality matching the importance of its location. Glasgow, after all, will have to live with the results for a long time.
There is also need for a building that accommodates its occupants efficiently and in accordance with their needs and provides a good working environment. All this creates complex problems for the planners."—[Official Report, 11 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 1268-70.]
Sound stuff, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is no doubt that the new building is to be costly.
Presumably, therefore, as the dispersal is bound to be costly, the jobs concerned will be ones obviously more appropriately fulfilled for reasons of cost effectiveness at locations other than those where they are presently carried out. I shall give a list of what those jobs are. There are to be 1,120 posts from London: Service and civilian personnel management, 325; stores management and procurement, including 80 victualling staff, 205; defence

equipment codification, Nottingham, 240; Army pensions, Stanmore, 120; Equipment standardisation, 100; common services, 130. That makes 1,120.
Then there are 280 posts from the procurement executive; Master General of the Ordnance, assistant directorate of contracts (general stores), Chessington, 40; controller aircraft, air technical publications, Chessington, 130; controller research and development establishments and research, defence research information centre, St. Mary Cray, 80; additional common services staff, 30. That is 280 jobs, making a total of 1,400.
In evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish affairs Mr. West, assistant under-secretary at the Ministry of Defence, was categoric. On 5 November 1980, in answer to the question
Can they"—
that is, civil servants—
be moved to Glasgow without loss of efficiency?",
his reply was a monosyllabic"No". He explained it more fully in earlier answers to questions in the same committee when he observed
that Hardman, and we would agree with him, could find no way of moving Ministry of Defence work to Glasgow in a manner that was conducive to efficiency, economy and the better running of the Department.
In reply to Mr. O'Neill, he stated:
The Ministry of Defence qua Ministry of Defence has no requirement to go to Glasgow … so we are prepared in a sense, one could say, to make a sacrifice. We are contributing towards a general plan to assist the city of Glasgow. In my view, the provision of outdoor relief has never been a role for the Ministry of Defence.
In evidence to the Committee on Scottish affairs on 29 October last year, Mrs. Sloman, under-secretary at the Civil Service department, admitted that the Exchequer cost at 1979 prices—I repeat, 1979 prices—of the proposed transfer would be £22 million. There is confusion over the precise resource costs—first, because the dispersal to Glasgow is lumped in with that to east Kilbride; secondly, because the oral evidence to the Scottish Committee had to be corrected by a subsequent memorandum from the Civil Service Department; and, thirdly, because the figures of resource cost given are clearly phoney. Alleged savings take into account private costs such as differential housing and commuting prices and ignore other factors such as the under-utilisation of MoD office premises in London which, for example, in the case of St. Christopher's house, St. Giles Court and Empress State Building, are already not fully occupied.
My own estimate covering the cost of land, building, furnishing, floor covering, communications, office machinery, canteen equipment, heating equipment, building depreciation plus depreciation for all interior capital items, the cost of moving 500 mibile posts—that is, executive, technical and management grades—the additional staff required to cover longer travelling times, the temporary staff in the transition period and relocating 900 non-mobile grades in London, plus excess travelling costs, comes to £26·3 million, which, together with 10 per cent, interest on the capital employed over 10 years, comes to a total of £52·6 million. A few simple examples will point out the enormity of what is proposed.
One of the major departments in the sphere of equipment which, it is suggested, should move holds 86 per cent, of its meeting and liaison visits in the London and South-Eastern areas. The proportion for Scotland is zero per cent. Even if some of this work can be done by


telephone, the long-distance charge is 12 times that of local calls. If it cannot be done by telephone, the time wasted and the travelling costs are enormous. Furthermore, the overnight subsistence allowance in inner London for top civil servants is £44.80 a night, the cost per head of transfer to London is about £10,000. The personnel will, of course—this is typical—retain their London weighting allowance, although that, as a proportion of their total remuneration, will decline over the years.
If the public knew more widely that the civil servants concerned will, in effect, be drawing additional salary to the normal scale, based on their London weighting, to work in Glasgow, they would not be amused.
The effect in employment terms of this Alice in Wonderland policy is to import unemployment to Scotland. Many of the wives and dependants of civil servants affected now work in the London area. They will not be nearly so likely to find jobs in Scotland. Unemployment in Greater London stands at 248,900 against 287,900 in Scotland. To put it another way, unemployment in the South-East, including the Greater London area, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is also a London Member, will know, is at 526,600, much more than that of Wales and Scotland put together, at 434,300. Furthermore, in the past year unemployment grew almost twice as fast in London—by 72 per cent., compared with 41 per cent, in Scotland.
We face a serious problem in making good use of the limited resources available to defence. It cannot by any argument be said that the transfer is a good use in defence terms. I have made clear that the Jetstream project which could be funded, for RAF purposes, almost entirely out of the cost of the transfer has been postponed. There is to be other real work for Scotland—for example, the provision of new port facilities for the Trident boats.
There are, finally, two other little matters. It is noteworthy that the militancy displayed by civil servants during the day of inaction—if that is the right word—today was greatest in Scotland and least in the South-East. If civil servants are disgruntled at the prospect of a pay increase limited to 6 per cent., they will not be exactly pleased to see money that could theoretically be used to improve their remuneration going on a thoroughly unprofitable and wasteful diversion of resources in transferring civil servants from the London area to Glasgow.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Philip Goodhart): As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) noted in his closing remarks, it is perhaps ironic that the debate should coincide with the one-day strike which was supposed to bring about a complete shutdown of the Civil Service.
I am sure that the Government as a whole are grateful to all the civil servants who continued to work today, and I am particularly grateful to all those connected with the preparatory work for the debate who stayed at their posts. However, in one respect I am sorry that my hon. Friend was successful so soon in his request for a debate. The Select Committee on Scottish affairs, which has been considering the subject—I note that the Chairman of the Committee is in the Chamber—recommended that there should be a re-evaluation of the relative merits of the St.

Enoch and Anderston sites in Glasgow and that the re-evaluation by the PSA should be completed by the middle of March. It would have been surprising if the PSA had succeeded in completing its re-evaluation in time for the debate, because re-evaluations of the subject over the years have gone on at a stately pace.
The question of the dispersal of Civil Service work in order to avoid an over-concentration on London has a lengthy history, and the current chapter began 10· years ago with the publication of a White Paper on the reorganisation of central Government in October 1970.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to the history, will he make a note to deal with when he expects the reply to the Select Committee report, because we were anxious to hurry the rather stately pace to which he referred and to get a speedy decision on the contentious matter of the competing sites? Will he also say something about the information apparently given to the ad hoc committee in Glasgow this afternoon to the effect that the Army pensions jobs from Stanmore which were to be phased up in 1982–83 are to be delayed again from that date because of the expenditure cuts that have been enforced on the Ministry?

Mr. Goodhart: I hope to cover those matters in my remarks.
The White Paper announced the establishment of a further study, which was led by Sir Henry Hardman. His report—published two and a half years later in June 1973—was prepared at a time when the Civil Service was. growing in size and there was the prospect of having to provide more office space at high London rents. The Hardman recipe was a drastic one—to move 30,000 Civil Service jobs out of London. On 30 July 1974, the Labour Government broadly accepted the Hardman target of relocating 30,000 jobs, although not in quite the way that Sir Henry had suggested.
The Ministry of Defence was due to carry a major share of this change. No fewer than 4,250 jobs, mainly from the ordnance and aircraft sides of the Ministry, were to move to South Wales, while 5,000 jobs, of which the bulk would have come from outside London, were earmarked for Glasgow. The cost of the whole package would have been at least £250 million in the period up to 1983–84, and the net cost to the MOD alone would have been about £100 million. At that time, a number of London Members—including myself—pointed out that, apart from the financial cost, there would be a substantial loss of efficiency in the MOD and unnecessary disruption in the lives of the civil servants, many of whom were valued constituents of ours.
In July 1979, within weeks of the general election, this Government announced a dramatic reduction in the size of the Hardman package. The 9,250 Hardman Ministry of Defence relocations were reduced to 1,400, and the estimated gross cost to the MOD had been reduced from £100 million to about £12 million. This figure of 1,400 job relocations was worked out after the closest consultation between the Scottish Office, the Civil Service Department and the Ministry of Defence. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House on 13 May 1980,
There is no change in the plans, numbers and destination announced".…[Official Report, 13 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 1055.]
We are wholly committed to that figure of 1,400, although a review under the auspices of the Defence Council which


is to be held in 1982 could lead to some readjustment of the blocks of work affected, to which my right hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the estimates of cost prepared by the Civil Service Department and others, including the university of Strathclyde, were made before they knew which Departments would be moving, so that those estimates were really"guesstimates"?

Mr. Goodhart: I think that the £22 million figure to which my hon. Friend referred covered the ODA as well as the Ministry of Defence.
We are committed to make this move by 1986, and, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, preparations have already begin to transfer the Army Pensions Office from Stanmore to Glasgow in advance of the rest of those involved. The Army Pensions Office will open its doors in Glasgow towards the end of 1982 or the beginning of 1983, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is not right to suggest that the economies announced will affect the timing of that move.
The present staff of the APO at Stanmore is 89—although the 48 staff at Guildford will be affected also. Of the 89 staff at Stanmore, 65 are classified as non-mobile and cannot be asked to move. In any case, 45 of them are over the age of 55, and of those 14 are over 60. A preliminary survey of the 24 so-called mobile civil servants suggests that the number of eager volunteers for a move to Glasgow is precisely nil.
It may be, however, that there are some people doing other work in the Ministry who would welcome a chance of a transfer to the APO in Glasgow. But, in any event, our present calculation is that next year we shall begin to recruit 75 people in Glasgow itself. It will be a complex operation for, as I understand it, some of the new Glaswegian recruits will have to be trained at Stanmore, and for a time there will probably have to be an element of double-manning as well as detached duty. The whole exercise will certainly reduce our efficiency and will probably cost at least an extra £1 million. That is a lot of money, but it would not, I think, quite buy one of the Jetstream aircraft about which my hon. Friend is rightly enthusiastic.
I have no doubt that the problems which the APO at Stanmore is beginning to tackle will also be faced by the other groups that travel to Glasgow, and I suspect that the complexity of the problems involved is not appreciated by our critics in Scotland who have sometimes claimed that the MOD was dragging its collective feet. Certainly, it is true that the Government would never have supported this move if the percentage unemployment figures in Glasgow were not twice as bad as they are for Greater London.
But of course the transfer of blocks of work from London to Glasgow is only one dramatic and highly visible part of an extensive involvement by the Ministry of Defence in the Scottish employment scene.
On 1 January 1979, the MOD employed 22,159 civil servants in Scotland. Two years later, on 1 January 1981, the number of MOD civil servants was 21,870—a fall of 289 or 1.3 per cent. In the South-East of England on 1 January 1979, the MOD employed 99,938 civil servants. By 1 January 1981, this number had fallen by 7,568 or 7.6 per cent.
In other words, in two years there was a shift in actual Civil Service jobs in favour of Scotland which was larger than anything contemplated by Sir Henry Hardman back in 1973, but very few people noticed this quite dramatic swing. But this is a controversial subject on which differing views are widely held. The apprehensions of my hon. Friend's constituents and of mine cannot easily be reconciled with the aspirations of the citizens of Glasgow.

Mr. John MacKay: Surely, one factor should be the number of vacancies in the Ministry of Defence in the South-East. I believe that they are considerable and that the number of vacancies in Scotland would be fewer in proportion. That should be taken into account when considering moving the jobs. The Department cannot fill all the jobs that it has available in the South-East.

Mr. Goodhart: There are certain recruiting restrictions in force. They were not in force throughout the two-year period when there was a dramatic shift in favour of Scotland.
When one adds together the fears, and hopes, costs, past pledges and the needs of the Ministry for a machine that works, we are left with a policy which provides a proper balance between conflicting interests.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.